http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2

PETITIONER:

SUSHIL KUMAR

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

MOTI RAM & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/08/1996

BENCH:

SINGH N.P. (J)

BENCH:

SINGH N.P. (J)

FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

CITATION:

JT 1996 (7) 470 1996 SCALE (6)188

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D M E N T

N.P.SINGH.J

When this appeal was taken up for hearing on August 8,

1996 the following order was passed:

The appellant is the son of

Respondent No.1 born through his

first wife, one Smt. Chandro. In

the year 1943 the mother of the

appellant died. Respondent No.1

married Smt. Satan Kaur (Respondent

No.2) in the year 1946, On April

12, 1948 the grandfather of the

appellant purchased the disputed

house in the name of the appellant.

However, on May 19, 1949 the grand-

father of the appellant sold the

said disputed house for a

consideration of Rs.2,000/- in

favour of the step-mother of the

appellant i.e. Respondent No.2. The

suit in question was filed on July

2, 1974 on behalf of the appellant

for permanent injunction

restraining the Respondent Nos.1

and 2 from interfering with the

possession of the appellant. That

suit was dismissed by the Civil

Judge. The appeal filed on behalf

o. the appellant was also

dismissed. The High Court also

dismissed the second appeal filed

on behalf of the appellant. It

appears to be an admitted position

that the appellant has remained in

possession of the house throughout.

However, learned counsel appearing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2

for the appellant made an offer

that the appellant was prepared to

give half portion of the house to

Respondent No.2 and is also

prepared to deliver possession of

that portion in order to have

peaceful settlement. Mr. Sodhi,

learned counsel appearing for the

respondents stated that the matter

be listed on some other day when he

will inform in respect of the

attitude of the respondents. If the

settlement is arrived at, memo of

settlement should be filed on that

date."

Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents on August 20, 1996 informed that he could not

receive any instructions from the respondents in respect of

the offer made on behalf of the appellant on August 8, 1996.

But he suggested that the Court may pass any appropriate

order taking all the facts and circumstances into

consideration as well as the interest of the parties

concerned. According to us, the offer made on behalf of the

appellant shall be in the interest of both the parties. In

view of an admitted position that the respondent No.2 is not

in possession of the house in question and for one reason or

the other the appellant has continued in possession of the

aid house throughout, it would be in the interest of

Respondent No.2 also that she is given possession of the

half portion of the house as offered on behalf of the

appellant. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in terms of the

offer made on behalf of the appellant. The appellant shall

remain in possession of the half portion of the house and

deliver possession of the remaining half portion to the

Respondent No.2 within three months from today. is allowed

to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to

costs.