Vinodan versus Vishwanathan

¶1

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 100

A

VINO DAN

v.

VISHWANATHAN Civil Appeal No. 881 of 2001

¶6

FEBRUARY 12, 2009

¶7

B

¶8

[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

¶9

Suit - For partition of building - Constructed on the. part of plot jointly owned by parties - Trial court directing equal partition - High Court holding that plaintiff not entitled to parti- c tion and could claim only the amount spent on construction - On appeal, defendant agreeing to pay Rs. 5,50,0001- in lieu of plaintiff's share - Held: Direction for payment of the amount as agreed by defendant to the plaintiff for balancing equities and keeping happiness and peace between the litigating broth- D ers.

¶10

~

¶11

The present appeal relates to a dispute between two brothers regarding partition of a building constructed on a part of plot of which they were joint owners. Claim of E^{respondent was that he had spent the entire cost of con-} struction, while the appellant contended that he had equally contributed for the construction.

¶12

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

¶13

F HELD: The parties have been .litigating for more than 20 years and because of the bitter and long litigation, it may not be conducive for the parties to stay in the same building, particularly when they have option of residing separately because of the available land with each one of G them. The respondent gave an offer that he is willing to pay Rs.5,50,0001- in lieu of the share of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, while balancing the equities and for keeping peace and happiness in the

' .,

100

H

101

VINODAN V. VISHWANATHAN

¶19

family, it would be just and proper to direct the respondent to pay Rs.5,50,000/- to the appellant. On receiving the said amount, the appellant may construct a suitable house in his portion of the land and for that purpose one year's time from the date of payment of Rs.5,50,000/- is granted to the appellant to vacate the portion of the building which is presently in his possession and give yacant and peaceful possession of his portion of building to the respondent in lieu of payment of Rs.5,50,000/-. [Paras 11 and 12] [104-D, E, F, G]

¶20

A

¶21

B

¶22

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.881 of 2001 c..

¶23

C

¶24

From the Judgement and Order dated 21.05.1998 of the High Court of Ke.rala at Ernakulam in A.S. No. 254of1990

¶25

._.

¶26

Subramonium Prasad for the Appellant.

¶27

A. R~ghunath for the Respondent.

¶28

... :,.~'',

¶29

D

¶30

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

·.-.

DALVEER BHANDAR1, J.

E

This appeal is directedagainst the judgment dated 21st May, 1. 998 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in A.S. No.254 of 1990.

¶35

This is an unfortunate litigation regarding partition of a building constructed on a small piece of land between the brothers. It is not disputed that the land is jointly owned by both the brothers. The dispute is restricted over the building which has been constructed on the part of the land. The matter has traveiled from the Subordinate Court, Trichur to this Court.

¶36

F -

¶37

G

¶38

A serious endeavour has been made by this Court to . amicably settle the matter. On 6.8.2008, the following order was passed by this Court"

¶39

"In the present case, the dispute is between two brothers.

¶40

H

¶41

~

¶42

·< 102 SUPREME COURT R~PORTS [2Q09] 2 S.C.R.

¶43

l--

¶44

F

¶45

A The ownership of the lanq is admittedly joint. The short controversy is regarding the cost of construction over that plot The case of the respondent is . that h-e has spent the > entire cost of construction whereas _the case of the appellant is that he has also contributed equally to the B cost of construction. In our considered view, this controversy can be easily sorted out by the parties. We have requested the learned counsel for. the parties to ensure that the matter may be amicably settled between the parties and for that purpose,- of: c we adjourn this matter for four weeks." The dispu.te could not be re.solved despite efforts of this court and now we have been called upon to give our judgment in the matter. D 4. Vinodan and Vishwanathan in the suit were the plaintiff and defendant before the trial court. The suit was filed before ·the trial court with the prayer that the property described in the plaint schedule was purchased jointly by the parties as per the r- r E^{-document no. 806/77 and the appellant before this court Vinodan} ;- is.entitled to the half share of the property. The trial court framed ~ t,he following issues: "(1) Whether the plaint schedule property was acquired , · by the plaintiff and defendant jointly or whether it was F acquired by the defendant exclusively? ;. f (2) Whether the house was constructed by both the •• parties or by· any of them exclusively? ~ (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim partition? G t (4) What is the quantum of mesne profits, if to be paid? ,,; ., ~ I (5) Equities and reservations? t (6) Reliefs and Costs?" ~ I. H ' < " ~

¶46

r- r ;- ~

¶47

;. f

G

H

i.-

103

VINODAN V. VISHWANATHAN [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

¶53

~ • I

¶54

•I

¶55

The trial court after examining the evidence and hearing the parties came to the following finding on Issues no.1 &2:

¶56

"I have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff and defendant had supplied funds for the construction of the house and the house had been constructed with that amount and so the house belonged to them jointly. Similarly the property had also been purchased with the funds of both and so it also belongs to them jointly."

A

8

-~-

Regarding Issue no. 3, the trial court came to the finding that it had to be divided into two equal shares and one such c share was allotted to the plaintiff/appellant herein and the other share was allotted to the defendant/respondent herein.

¶61

--1

¶62

Regarding Issue no.4 pertaining to mesne profits, the trial court held that the plaintiff/appellant was entitled to get mesne profits from the defendant/respondent from the date of suit till possession. The trial court further held that the quantum of mesne profits can be a matter which could be decided in the final decree proceedings after the Commissioner would submit his report.

¶63

D

¶64

E

¶65

~

¶66

The trial court directed that the property described in the plaint schedule has to be divided into two equal shares and one such share was allotted to the plaintiff/appellant and the other to the defendant/respondent.

¶67

The defendant/respondent Vishwanathan aggrieved by the said order of the Subordinate Court, Trichur filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The finding of the High Court is that the plaintiff/appellant had been regularly sending money for th~ construction of the building during the period 1977-78. Exhs. 8-36 and 8-37 go to show that the appellant had sent Rs.55,000/- during the period 1976-77 for the construction of the building.

¶68

F

¶69

G

¶70

On a close scrutiny of all the documents available on record and the oral evidence, the High Court came to the con-

¶71

H

¶72

104

¶73

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶74

[2009] 2 S.C.R.

¶75

A clusion that on construction of the building the appellant had spent Rs.55,000/- and the balance amount had been spen~ by the respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order and the,preliminary decree passed by the trial court. In the impugned judgment, the High Court directed that the plainB^{tiff/appellant was not entitled to divide the house and could only} claim Rs.55,000/- from the appellant which will be a charge on the property of the appellant.

¶76

The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, preferred this appeal before this court.

¶77

c

¶78

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The parties have been litigating for more than 20 years and because of the bitter and long litigation it may not be conducive for the parties to stay in the same building, particularly when D^{they have optionof residing separately becauseof the avail-} able land with each one of them. During the course of hearing, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent gave an offer that his client is willing to pay Rs.5,50,000/- in lieu of the share of the appellant. No offer was given by the appellant deE^{spite opportunity granted by this court.}

¶79

In the facts and circumstances of the case, while balancing the equities and for keeping peace and happiness in the family, we think it would be just and proper to direct the respondent to pay Rs.5,50,000/- to the appellant within a period F of four months. On receiving the said amount, the appellant may construct a suitable house in his portion of the land and for that purpose we grant one year's time from the date of payment of Rs.5,50,000/- to the appellant to vacate the portion of the building which is presently in· his possession and give vacant and G peaceful possession of his portion of building to the respondent in lieu of payment of Rs.5,50,000/-.

+·

,.._

Jll

/>'

¶85

y

¶86

We are granting long time to the appellant to vacate the portion of the building in his possession to avoid any inconveH^{nience to the appellant.In case the appellant after one year of}

¶87

VINODAN V. VISHWANATHAN [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

¶88

105

¶89

receiving the entire amount of Rs.5,50,000/- does not vacate the portion of the building in his possession, in that event, the Subordinate Court is directed to ensure that the possession is taken from the appellant and handed over to the respondent. Perhaps this solution may lead to ultimate peace between the families of two brothers.

¶90

A

¶91

B

¶92

With these observations, this appeal is accordingly disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶93

K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.

Vinodan v. Vishwanathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinodan v. Vishwanathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.P. State Forest Company Ltd. versus M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kailash Rani Dang versus Rakesh Bala Aneja & Anr.

Rajoo & Ors. versus State of M.P

Tushar D. Bhatt versus State of Gujarat & Ors.

Narayanan Rajendran & Another versus Lekshmy Sarojini & Others

State of U.P. versus Sukhpal Singh & Others