PETITIONER:
SUSHIL KUMAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MOTI RAM & ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/08/1996
BENCH:
SINGH N.P. (J)
FAIZAN UDDIN (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 470 1996 SCALE (6)188
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
JUDMENTN.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
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.