Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a residential house originally purchased by the appellant's grandfather in the appellant's name in 1948, but sold to the appellant's step-mother (respondent No.2) in 1949. The appellant, son of respondent No.1 through his first wife, filed a suit for permanent injunction in 1974 to restrain respondents from interfering with his possession. The Civil Judge dismissed the suit, and the first appeal as well as the second appeal before the High Court were also dismissed. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel made an offer on August 8, 1996, that the appellant would give half portion of the house to respondent No.2 and deliver possession of that portion for peaceful settlement. Respondent's counsel sought time to obtain instructions, but on August 20, 1996, informed the Court that he could not receive instructions from the respondents and suggested that the Court pass an appropriate order considering the interests of both parties. The Supreme Court noted the admitted position that respondent No.2 was not in possession of the house, while the appellant had remained in possession throughout. The Court concluded that the appellant's offer would be in the interest of both parties and allowed the appeal in terms of that offer. The appellant was directed to remain in possession of half portion of the house and deliver possession of the remaining half portion to respondent No.2 within three months. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Possession and Settlement - Compromise of dispute over house possession - Not mentioned - In a suit for permanent injunction, lower courts dismissed the appellant's claim. During Supreme Court hearing, appellant offered to give half portion to respondent No.2; respondent's counsel suggested court pass appropriate order. The Court, noting admitted possession of appellant and respondent No.2 not in possession, allowed the appeal in terms of the offer, directing appellant to deliver half portion within three months. Held that the settlement would be in the interest of both parties (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal should be allowed in terms of the appellant's offer to hand over half portion of the disputed house to respondent No.2, given lower courts dismissed the suit for injunction.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed in terms of the appellant's offer; appellant to remain in possession of half portion and deliver possession of remaining half portion to respondent No.2 within three months; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- The Supreme Court may allow an appeal on terms of compromise when such terms are fair and in interest of both parties
- even without deciding on merits. Admitted possession of a party can be recognized by directing partition of property.
