Case Note & Summary
This civil appeal by special leave arose from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras in A.S. No. 212 of 1983. The dispute centered on partition of immovable property and the existence of an alleged family arrangement. The appellant claimed that under a family arrangement he had been put in possession of the entire property and had been in possession right from 1977. The respondents contested this, stating that the property was self-acquired by the father after a partition with his brothers, and that the fifth respondent's mother had also conveyed her own interest, making the property not partible. The procedural history was lengthy: by order dated July 27, 1992 in C.A. No. 2718 of 1992, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court specifically to consider whether there was any family arrangement. After remand, the High Court held that there was no family arrangement, hence the appellant was not entitled to partition and allotment of his share. In the present appeal, the only question raised by the appellant's senior counsel was whether among the members of the family there was an arrangement under which the appellant was put in possession of the entire property and had been in possession since 1977. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, observed that it was obvious that the respondents had some arrangement because otherwise the appellant would not have had possession and management of the property. The Court did not formally overturn the High Court's finding on family arrangement but held that the interests of justice would be met by an equitable adjustment: the appellant should retain one-third of the property and surrender the remaining two-thirds to the contesting respondents, who were subsequent purchasers from other family members. The Court also directed the appellant to return one-third of the consideration paid by the respondents to the other members under the respective sale deeds, and to demarcate and deliver the two-thirds portion within two months. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the appellant was directed to deliver possession of the property to the respondents without any further order of Court, with no costs. The judgment thus balanced the equities by recognizing the appellant's long possession and management while protecting the interests of the subsequent purchasers. The ratio that emerges is that even where a family arrangement is not formally proved, the existence of possession and management may indicate some underlying arrangement, and courts may fashion equitable relief to do substantial justice between the parties.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Partition and Family Arrangement - Equitable Partition Based on Long Possession - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court considered whether a family arrangement existed under which the appellant was in possession of the entire property since 1977 after remand from the High Court. The High Court had held that there was no family arrangement. The Supreme Court observed that respondents must have had some arrangement because otherwise the appellant would not have had possession and management of the property. In the interests of justice, the Court directed the appellant to retain one-third of the property and surrender the remaining two-thirds to the contesting respondents who were subsequent purchasers from other family members, and to return one-third consideration paid by the respondents. Held that even without formal proof of family arrangement, long possession and management justified equitable adjustment. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether among the members of the family there was an arrangement under which the appellant was put in possession of the entire property and has been in possession right from 1977 under the family arrangement.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Appellant to retain 1/3rd of property and surrender remaining 2/3rd to contesting respondents who are subsequent purchasers from other family members. Appellant to return 1/3rd consideration paid by respondents to other members in respective sale deeds. Appellant directed to demarcate and deliver 2/3rd property in two months. No costs.
Law Points
- Family arrangement need not be formally proved if possession and management indicate some arrangement
- equitable partition can be ordered in interests of justice
- appellant entitled to retain one-third share based on long possession
- subsequent purchasers entitled to two-thirds
- consideration paid by purchasers to be reimbursed by appellant
- directions for demarcation and delivery.
