Supreme Court - Daily Orders
N.Subramanian vs Thanjiammal And Anr. on 13 March, 2019
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.6629 - 6630 of 2010
N. Subramanian .... Appellant
Versus
Thanjiammal & Another ….Respondents
ORDER
The Appellant filed a suit for injunction against the Respondents. The 1st Respondent is the mother of the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent in the said suit is the sister. The 2 nd Respondent filed another suit for recovery of possession of the land settled in her favour by Respondent No.1 by a Settlement Deed dated 12.07.1990. The 1 st Respondent cancelled the Signature Not Verified Deed on 30.07.1990. The cancellation of the Settlement Deed Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date: 2019.03.16 11:52:53 IST Reason: was the subject matter of O.S. No.16 of 1991 filed by the 2 nd Respondent.
2O.S. No.231 of 1990 filed by the Appellant was decreed by the trial court. O.S. No.16 of 1991 filed by the 2 nd Respondent was dismissed by the trial court. The 2 nd Respondent filed two appeals against the judgment in O.S. No.231 of 1990 and O.S. 16 of 1991. Both the appeals were allowed. While allowing the appeals, the First Appellate Court held that the interest of the 1 st Respondent in the property is not limited and that the Settlement Deed dated 12.07.1990 was approved. The First Appellate Court observed that the gift given by the 1 st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent was valid. There was no proof that the gift deed was secured by the 2 nd Respondent by practicing coercion and fraud. While allowing the suit filed by the 2nd Respondent, the First Appellate Court did not give any declaration regarding the right of the 2 nd Respondent over the property, but gave liberty to the 2 nd Respondent to pursue available remedies for getting a partition. The 2 nd Respondent did not challenge the said judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 22.12.1994. The Appellant filed two appeals which were dismissed by the High Court.
3
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent. We are informed that the 2 nd Respondent did not pursue the matter for filing a suit for partition after the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 22.12.1994. The Appellant submits that he is in possession of the property, which is an extent of 3.94 acres of the suit land.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that it is not necessary to decide the point involved in this case as the Appellant is in possession of the land and the 2 nd Respondent has not taken any steps to proceed further by filing a suit for partition pursuant to the liberty given by the court.
The Appeals are disposed of along with pending applications, if any.
..................................J. [ L. NAGESWARA RAO ] ..................................J. [ M.R. SHAH] New Delhi, 13th March, 2019.
4
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.13 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).6629-6630/2010 N.SUBRAMANIAN Appellant(s) VERSUS THANJIAMMAL & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 13-03-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Appellant(s) Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy,Adv.
Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy,AOR Mr. P. Raja Ram,Adv.
Mr. C. Rubavathi,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Deepika Nanda Kumar,Adv.
Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(Kailash Chander) (Sarita Purohit)
Assistant Registrar AR-cum-PS
(Signed order is placed on the file)