No court can grant decree/relief infavour of the defendant without counter claim and without pleadings and without producing the documents , while granting decree in favour of the plaintiff as he prayed for The suit for declaration of title and injunction- the trial court decreed the suit with costs. However, the defendants have been given the right to grow Tulsi and pluck flowers in the suit land for performance of pooja. - High court also confirmed the same - Apex court held that The defendant has not set up the case of having right of growing Tulsi and plucking flowers in the land in question and had only set up own title. That has not been proved. In the circumstances, having failed to prove the title and in the absence of any counter claim with respect to the right of growing Tulsi and plucking flowers, no decree could have been granted by the Trial court or by the High Court. The very basis of the defendants case was Gift Deed in proving which they have miserably failed and being not related in any capacity to the plaintiff, there was no question of relinquishing or release of any right whatsoever. The defendant could have succeeded only on the strength of having title or Gift Deed. In case, gift was there, there was no question of limited right being given to the defendant of growing Tulsi and plucking flowers. In the facts and circumstances of the case and that no issue was framed with respect to growing Tulsi and plucking flowers, no counter claim was filed by the defendent with respect to the aforesaid relief, in our considered opinion, it was not upon the trial court to pass such a decree in favour of defendant as has been done. Thus, the part of the decree passed by the trial court and by the High Court with respect to growing Tulsi and plucking flowers is hereby set aside. The appeal filed by the plaintiff is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the defendant is hereby dismissed.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra 
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6760  OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.24164 of 2014)
 M. THIMMA REDDY                                    Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
 G. RAVINDRA & ANR.                                 Respondent(s)

 WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6815  OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 31415 of 2014)

O R D E R
Leave granted.
These   appeals   have   been   preferred   by   the
plaintiff   as   well   as   by   the   defendants   aggrieved   by
the   judgment   and   order   of   the   trial   court   and   High
Court. The suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by
the   trial   court   with   costs   and   the   plaintiff   has
been   declared   to   be   the   absolute   owner   of   the   suit
schedule   property   and   injunction   has   also   been
granted   as   against   the   defendants   not   to   interfere
in   the   peaceful   possession   of   the   plaintiffs   over
the suit schedule property.   However, the defendants

2
have   been   given   the   right   to   grow   Tulsi   and   pluck
flowers   in   the   suit   land   for   performance   of   pooja.
It   is   the   later   portion   by   which   the   defendant   have
been given right to grow Tulsi and pluck flowers for
performing   the   poojas   has   been   questioned   in   the
appeal   by   the   plaintiff   whereas   defendant   has   come
up   in   the   appeal   as   against   the   decree   granted   in
favour of plaintiff. The High Court has affirmed the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
The defendant had based its case on the basis
of   a   Gift   Deed   executed   by   M.Thimma   Reddy.   The   said
gift   deed,   has   not   been   produced   in   evidence   to
prove the case.   The plaintiff and defendant are not
related to each other.
     In settlement deed � P-2, there is a reference
to   the   fact   that   certain   portion   of   land   was
reserved   for   growing   of   Tulsi   and   plucking   the
flowers   for   the   purpose   of   charity   and   performance
of   pooja.     Reading   of   the   document   P-2   does   not
prove   the   title   in   favour   of   the   defendants   in   any
manner   whatsoever.     In   the   circumstances,   in   order
to   prove   the   title,   it   was   necessary   for   the
defendant   to   produce   the   gift   deed   and   to   prove   it.
That   has   not   been   done.   Even   other   relevant
documents   have   not   been   filed   as   observed   by   the
trial   court.   As   such,   the   concurrent   finding   that
has   been   recorded   that   the   defendant   has   not   been

3
able   to   prove   his   title   is   unassailable   and   is   in
accordance   with   law   in   view   of   the   facts   and   the
evidence   on   record.   The   title   and   possession   of
plaintiff has rightly been found established.
The   defendant   has   not   set   up   the   case   of
having   right   of   growing   Tulsi   and   plucking   flowers
in   the   land   in   question   and   had   only   set   up   own
title.   That   has   not   been   proved.   In   the
circumstances,   having   failed   to   prove   the   title   and
in   the   absence   of   any   counter   claim   with   respect   to
the   right   of     growing   Tulsi   and     plucking   flowers,
no decree could have been granted by the Trial court
or   by   the   High   Court.   The   very   basis   of   the
defendants   case   was   Gift   Deed   in   proving   which   they
have   miserably   failed   and   being   not   related   in   any
capacity   to   the   plaintiff,   there   was   no   question   of
relinquishing   or   release   of   any   right   whatsoever.
The   defendant   could   have   succeeded   only   on   the
strength   of   having   title   or   Gift   Deed.     In   case,
gift   was   there,   there   was   no   question   of   limited
right   being   given   to   the   defendant   of   growing   Tulsi
and  plucking flowers.            
      In the facts and circumstances of the case and
that   no   issue   was   framed   with   respect   to   growing
Tulsi   and     plucking   flowers,   no   counter   claim   was
filed by the defendent with respect to the aforesaid
relief,   in   our   considered   opinion,   it   was   not   upon

4
the   trial   court   to   pass   such   a   decree   in   favour   of
defendant   as   has   been   done.     Thus,   the   part   of   the
decree   passed   by   the   trial   court   and   by   the   High
Court   with   respect   to     growing   Tulsi   and     plucking
flowers is hereby set aside.
The   appeal   filed   by   the   plaintiff   is   hereby
allowed   and   the   appeal   filed   by   the   defendant   is
hereby dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs. 
       �����������������������J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
���������������������� J.
[ S.ABDUL NAZEER ]
   New Delhi;
   17 th
 July, 2018.

5
ITEM NO.24               COURT NO.8               SECTION IV-A
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).24164/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  27-03-2014
in   RFA   No.   35/2012   27-03-2014   in   RFA   No.   1565/2011   passed   by   the
High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru)
M. THIMMA REDDY                                    Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
G. RAVINDRA & ANR.                                 Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 31415/2014

Date : 17-07-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER
For Petitioner(s) Mr. H.N.Nagmohan Das,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Shekhar G Devasa,Adv.
Mr. Manish Tiwari,Adv.
Mr. Luv Kumar,Adv.
                    M/S.Devasa & Co., AOR
                    Mrs.Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. V.Giri,Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy,Adv.
                    Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
                    Mrs.Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR
                    M/S.Devasa & Co., AOR                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
Leave granted.
The   appeal   filed   by   the   plaintiff   is   hereby
allowed   and   the   appeal   filed   by   the   defendant   is
hereby dismissed in terms of the signed order.
    (B.PARVATHI)                                (JAGDISH CHANDER)
    COURT MASTER                                  BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file) 

in a suit for mere injunction - an amendement of plaint can be allowed for specific performance of agreement of sale if it is in time Or.6, rule 17 CPC- amendment of plaint adding for specific perfromance of agreement of sale in a bare suit for injuntion - both courts dismissed the same - The reasoning given by the courts below is that the amendment would be barred by limitation if one is to calculate the limitation from the date of the agreement to sell or the date of the alleged cancellation, both of which took place in the years 2004 and 2005 respectively. Since the amendment was moved on 20.02.2014, the courts below have said that the amendment is time barred. - Apex court held that The Agreement to Sell dated 31.03.2004 itself states that a contingency has first to occur before the Agreement can be enforced, viz., a second appeal has to be disposed of. We are informed that the said second appeal was dismissed as withdrawn only on 12.12.2012. Therefore, at the earliest, limitation to enforce this Agreement would began only from the said date. The amendment made, therefore, cannot be said to be time barred. The amendment, therefore, stands allowed. The judgments passed by the courts below are set aside.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman 
1
IN�THE�SUPREME�COURT�OF�INDIA
�CIVIL� APPELLATE� JURISDICTION
� CIVIL�APPEAL�Nos.�10753�OF�2018
(Arising�out�of�SLP�(C)��No.�13459�of�2018)
��� �����������������
�� ���
KEWAL�KRISHAN ... � Appellant (s)
�
���������������������� Versus
DHARAMBIR�AND�ORS. ... � Respondent(s)
�������� O�R�D�E�R�
1) Delay condoned.
2) Leave granted.
3) An amendment application to a plaint which was filed for
injunction   simpliciter,   the   amendment   being   for   adding   the
relief   of   specific   performance,   has   been   turned   down   by   the
courts   below.     The   reasoning   given   by   the   courts   below   is
that the amendment would be barred by limitation if one is to
calculate   the   limitation   from   the   date   of   the   agreement   to
sell   or   the   date   of   the   alleged   cancellation,   both   of   which
took   place   in   the   years   2004   and   2005   respectively.     Since
the amendment was moved on 20.02.2014, the courts below have
said that the amendment is time barred.
4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the   view   that   this   is   not   correct.     The   Agreement   to   Sell
dated   31.03.2004   itself   states   that   a   contingency   has   first
to occur before the Agreement can be enforced, viz., a second
appeal has to be disposed of.   We are informed that the said

2
second appeal was dismissed as withdrawn only on 12.12.2012.
Therefore,   at   the   earliest,   limitation   to   enforce   this
Agreement would began only from the said date.  The amendment
made, therefore, cannot be said to be time barred.
5) The amendment, therefore, stands allowed.  The judgments
passed by the courts below are set aside.
6) With these observations, the appeal is allowed.
�
����.......................J.
                                           ��������������(ROHINTON�FALI�NARIMAN)
�.........................J.
��������� �������������������(NAVIN�SINHA)
�
���������
New�Delhi,
Dated:�October�26,�2018.������������

3
ITEM NO.45               COURT NO.8               SECTION IV-B
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  13459/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  28-11-2017
in CR No. 8141/2014 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At
Chandigarh)
KEWAL KRISHAN                                      Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
DHARAMBIR & ORS.                                   Respondent(s)
(Relief:-Permanent Injunction)
Date : 26-10-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Rohit Vats, Adv.
Mr. I.C. Sharma, Adv.
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shish Pal Laler, Adv.
Mr. Sonit Sinhmar, Adv.
                   Mr. Devesh Kumar Tripathi, AOR
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(MANAV SHARMA)                           (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)
COURT MASTER (SH)                                 BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file.) 

Injunction can be granted as the appellant will not be dispossessed except in accordance with law or any other law. suit for injunction-According to the appellant, there was said to be an attempt to forcibly dispossess them by the respondents and that is what drove them to file a suit for injunction.-The Trial Court granted the injunction but on appeal the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court. The High Court went to the extent of holding that the grant of land to the appellant under the U.P. Bhoodan Yagana Act, 1952 was not permissible or irregular. - Apex court held that We have been informed that steps have not been taken by the respondents under the U.P. Bhoodan Yagana Act, 1952 to cancel the grant made to the appellant. In view of the above, it is clear that the possession of the appellant is not in dispute. That being the position, the appellant will not be dispossessed from the allotted land under the U.P. Bhoodan Yagana Act, 1952 or the land allotted to them in exchange of land under the said Act, except in accordance with law or any other law.In view of the above, the order passed by the High Court is set aside.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan Bhimarao Lokur

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal  No(s).  1332/2009
DOKHAM TIBBAT FOUNDATION                           Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
SATE OF UTTRANCHAL & ANR.                          Respondent(s)
  O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.   The appellant
filed a suit for injunction (being Suit No. 212 of 2003) before the
Additional District Judge, Dehradun.
According to the appellant, there was said to be an attempt to
forcibly dispossess them by the respondents and that is what drove
them to file a suit for injunction.
The Trial Court granted the injunction but on appeal the High
Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.11.2007 in First
Appeal   No.   64/2003   set   aside   the   order   of   the   Trial   Court.     The
High Court went to the extent of holding that the grant of land to
the   appellant   under   the   U.P.   Bhoodan   Yagana   Act,   1952   was   not
permissible or irregular.
We   have   been   informed   that   steps   have   not   been   taken   by   the
respondents   under   the   U.P.   Bhoodan   Yagana   Act,   1952   to   cancel   the
grant made to the appellant.
In   view   of   the   above,   it   is   clear   that   the   possession   of   the
appellant   is   not   in   dispute.     That   being   the   position,   the
appellant will not be dispossessed from the allotted land under the
U.P.   Bhoodan   Yagana   Act,   1952   or   the   land   allotted   to   them   in
1

exchange of land under the said Act, except in accordance with law
or any other law.
Should any steps be taken in this regard, all contentions are
open to the parties.
In   view   of   the   above,   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is
set aside.
The civil appeal is disposed of.  No order as to costs.
� ....................J.
[MADAN B. LOKUR]
� ....................J.
[DEEPAK GUPTA]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 18, 2018.
2

ITEM NO.109               COURT NO.4               SECTION X
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal  No(s).  1332/2009
DOKHAM TIBBAT FOUNDATION                           Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
SATE OF UTTRANCHAL & ANR.                          Respondent(s)

Date : 18-04-2018  This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv.
Ms. Abha Jain, AOR
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi, Dy. A.G.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR
                   
         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The civil appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(MEENAKSHI  KOHLI)                       (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)
  COURT MASTER                                   COURT MASTER
[Signed order is placed on the file]
3 

No injunction when the plaintiff's share is 6 pies and 3.125% in the entire suit property, and when the total undivided share of the other co-sharers including the plaintiffs share is 49% . Injunction order - Trail court granted - Hight court affirmed - Apex court held that The original plaintiff i.e., respondent No.1, holds 6 pies i.e., more than 3% in the suit property. Other defendants also have shares in the property which are specifically mentioned and out of which Kantilal has further purchased 2.1% shares of one Babubai and thus, Kantilal, the predecessor in title , was having approximately 51% share. Thus, the other persons including the original plaintiff, are holding 49% undivided share in the entire property. It is informed that one or two co-sharers have also filed suits against the present appellant. Thus, the plaintiffs in the suit may be having 3.125% share in the entire property but the total of other co- sharers is 49% and hence, not at all negligible. The appellant has challenged the title of the respondent/original plaintiff and also the document of 7.10.1965 is disputed. However, it is a matter of evidence. At this stage, the share of the appellant and the other co-sharers comes to nearly 50% and, therefore the appellant alone cannot be allowed to transfer, alienate or develop the suit property even to the extent of some share unless the suit property is partitioned especially, when he is predecessor-in-title who was a co-sharer had abandoned the property to him without the consent of other co-sharer earlier. Thus, though the share of the present plaintiff is 6 pies and 3.125% in the entire suit property, the total undivided share of the other co-sharers including the plaintiffs share is 49% and hence, i am of the view that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is correct and hence, not to be disturbed. The order of injunction is concerned, we are of the view that an adequate analysis was not made by the High Court and, therefore, the said order is set aside. The learned Single Judge while considering the proposals may look into various aspects and pass a reasoned order keeping in view the concept of � prima facie case� , balance of convenience and irreperable injury.

The Chief Justice of India 
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4307-4308 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.2672-2673 of 2018)
Cornell Housing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.  Appellant(s)
                  Versus
Smt. Geeta Patkar and Others      Respondent(s)
O R D E R 
Leave granted.
These   appeals,   by   special   leave,   assail   the   order
dated   7 th
  August,   2017,   whereby   the   High   Court   of   Judicature
at   Bombay   in   appeal   from   Order   No.511   of   2017,   has   affirmed
the   order   of   injunction   passed   by   the   Civil   Judge,   Senior
Division, Thane.
On a perusal of the order passed by the High Court,
we find, after quoting few judgments, it has asribed reasons
which are to the following effect:-
�9. In   the   present   case,   both   the   parties
i.e.,   the   appellant   and   respondent   No.1/the
original   plaintiff,   both   claimed   rights
originally  on  the  basis  of  the  sale  deed  dated
5.10.1965.  Further, the plaintiff claims right
on   the   basis   of   second   document   dated
7.10.1965, which was executed between Kantilal,
the   plaintiff,   and   the   other   defendants.     In
the   said   impugned   registered   document,   of   the

2
total   suit   land   admeasuring   315   acres,
percentages   of   all   the   co-sharers   are
specifically mentioned.  Kantilal, the original
predecessor   in   title   of   the   appellant,
admittedly   holds   48.2%   shares   by   virtue   of   the
said   document.     The   original   plaintiff   i.e.,
respondent   No.1,   holds   6   pies   i.e.,   more   than
3% in the suit property.  Other defendants also
have   shares   in   the   property   which   are
specifically   mentioned   and   out   of   which
Kantilal   has   further   purchased   2.1%   shares   of
one Babubai and thus, Kantilal, the predecessor
in   title   ,   was   having   approximately   51%   share.
Thus,   the   other   persons   including   the   original
plaintiff,   are   holding   49%   undivided   share   in
the   entire   property.     It   is   informed   that   one
or two co-sharers have also filed suits against
the present appellant.  Thus, the plaintiffs in
the   suit   may   be   having   3.125%   share   in   the
entire   property   but   the   total   of   other   co-
sharers   is   49%   and   hence,   not   at   all
negligible.     The   appellant   has   challenged   the
title   of   the   respondent/original   plaintiff   and
also   the   document   of   7.10.1965   is   disputed.
However,   it   is   a   matter   of   evidence.     At   this
stage, the share of the appellant and the other
co-sharers   comes   to   nearly   50%   and,   therefore
the   appellant   alone   cannot   be   allowed   to
transfer, alienate or develop the suit property
even   to   the   extent   of   some   share   unless   the
suit   property   is   partitioned   especially,   when
he   is   predecessor-in-title   who   was   a   co-sharer
had   abandoned   the   property   to   him   without   the
consent   of   other   co-sharer   earlier.     The
submissions   of   the   learned   senior   counsel   that
the   plaintiff   has   not   asked   for   partition
cannot be appreciated at this stage because the
plaintiff   does   not   want   to   transfer   the
property   and,   therefore,   she   has   sought   only
declaration.
18. Thus,   though   the   share   of   the   present
plaintiff   is   6   pies   and   3.125%   in   the   entire
suit property, the total undivided share of the
other   co-sharers   including   the   plaintiff�s
share is 49% and hence, it am of the view that
the  order  passed  by  the  learned  trial  Judge  is
correct and hence, not to be disturbed.�

3
It is submitted by Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. Mukul
Rohatgi,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellants
that   the   plaintiff-respondent   can   at   best   make   a   claim   of
49.25%   of   the   shares   in   the   property,   but   that   would   not
entitle   it   to   stop   development   in   the   rest   of   the   property.
Dr.   Abhishek   Manu   Singhvi,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing
for   the   owner   would   submit   in   support   of   the   appellant   that
the development can take place in respect of the rest of the
property. 
Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for
the   respondent   No.1   has   serious   objection   to   the   aforesaid
submission.  It is his contention that there was an agreement
between the owner and the respondent No.1 for a joint venture
in 1965.   The property is asset of the joint venture and the
purchase was made of the undivided property.  
A   proposal   has   also   been   given   by   Mr.   Salve   and
Mr.   Rohatgi   that   some   appeals   filed   by   the   other   plaintiffs
are pending before the High Court and they have no objection
if the appeals are allowed and the matter is remitted to the
trial   Judge   for   Suit   No.55   of   2010   to   be   tried   along   with
Suit   Nos.78   of   2011   and   776   of   2011   and   they   should   be
consolidated and tried by one Civil Judge, Senior Division.
Having   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties,   we
think   it   appropriate   that   the   High   Court   should   consider
these aspects appropriately.   However, as far as the present

4
order of injunction is concerned, we are of the view that an
adequate   analysis   was   not   made   by   the   High   Court   and,
therefore,   the   said   order   is   set   aside.     The   learned   Single
Judge   while   considering   the   proposals   may   look   into   various
aspects and pass a reasoned order keeping in view the concept
of � prima facie case� , balance of convenience and irreperable
injury.  
Liberty   is   granted   to   the   parties   to   mention   before
the High Court at Bombay.
In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   the   order   of   the   High
Court is set aside.  The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
The   matter   stands   restored   to   the   Single   Judge   for   hearing
afresh.
     

..................CJI.
[Dipak Misra]
....................J.
[A.M. Khanwilkar]
....................J.
[Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud]
New Delhi,
April 20 , 2018.

5
ITEM NO.35               COURT NO.1               SECTION IX
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  Nos.2672-2673/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  07-08-2017
in   CAAST   No.   22083/2017   07-08-2017   in   AFO   No.   511/2017   passed   by
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
CORNELL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD             Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
GEETA PATKAR & ORS.                                Respondent(s)

Date : 20-04-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
          HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Praveen Samdani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv.
                  Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR
Mr. Aman Gandhi, Adv.
Ms. Ankita Sangwan, Adv.
Ms. Priykshi Bhatnagar, Adv.
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anirudh B. Laad, Adv.
                   Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR
Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Rubin Vakil, Adv.
                    Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR
                   
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
Leave granted.

6
The   appeals   are   disposed   of   in   terms   of   the   signed
order.
(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)
 Court Master    Assistant Registrar
(Signed order is placed on the file) 

No need to disturb the partitioned properties while granting partition decree in respect of unpartitioned properties suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral properties set out in Schedules to the plaint.- The defendants stated that soon after the death of their father in the year 1944, there was a partition amongst the brothers and each of the brothers was enjoying agricultural lands separately and the house properties were also divided amongst the brothers and the respective branches were living separately - Trail court dismissed the suit - Appellate court confirmed the same - The High Court observed that Item Nos. 3 and 8 were admittedly ancestral properties and once the theory of previous partition was not accepted, the plaintiff was entitled to succeed. With this view, the High Court accepted the second appeals and decreed the suit insofar as it related to Schedule 'A' and Schedule 'B' properties - Apex court held that As admitted by Defendant No. 1, though the properties item Nos. 4 and 6 from Schedule 'A' were in his name, part of those properties were also in cultivating possession of the plaintiff. In the totality of the circumstances, in our considered view, the High Court was justified in interfering in its second appellate jurisdiction. We, therefore, affirm the view taken by the High Court in respect of properties mentioned in Schedule 'A'. In our view, the properties in Schedule 'B' must be left alone and if the parties are holding separate shares, there is no need to disturb the same.In the circumstances, the suit for partition as filed by Venkataramanappa (since deceased) is decreed in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule 'A' alone. The parties, namely, the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to one third share in said properties in Schedule 'A'. Schedules 'B' and 'C' properties shall, however, remain undisturbed. The High Court decree is modified to that extent.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1632 OF 2007
   BYRASETTY (D) BY LRS. and ANR.        APPELLANT(S)
                       VERSUS
   VENKATARAMANAPPA (D) BY LRS.          RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Delay   condoned   in   filing   application   for
substitution   to   bring   on   record   the   legal
representatives   of   deceased   appellant   No.   1(a).
Abatement,   if   any,   is   set   aside.   The   substitution
application is allowed.
In   1980,   a   civil   suit   was   filed   by
plaintiff-Venkataramanappa   against   his   brothers   Byra
Setty   and   Subbanna   seeking   partition   and   separate
possession   of   ancestral   properties   set   out   in
Schedules   to   the   plaint.   Schedule   'A'   to   the   plaint
comprised   of   six   items   of   agricultural   land   while
Schedule   'B'   comprised   of   house   properties   where   the
parties   had   been   living.   Schedule   'C'   dealt   with
certain movables. The suit was re-numbered in 1984 as
O.S.   No.   134/1984.   Schedule   'A'   to   the   plaint   is   set
out hereunder for facility:

2
"�A� SCHEDULE
1. S. No.  241 dry land    5.15 ass Rs. 5.35
2. �    115/5 Wet land     0-18 ass. Rs. 0-85
3. �    116/1 Garden       0-17 �        0-73
4. �    109/2 Wet          0-03  �       0-24
5.  �  91/2 Wet            2-00 �        3-58
6. �   102/3 Wet           0.06 �        0-26
7. �  108/3 Wet            0.05 �        0-39
  8.  � 133/1 Dry            4.04 �        5-42
Items   1   to   8   are   situate   at   Thorahalli,   Malur
Taluk."
The   defendants   took   up   the   plea   that   soon
after   the   death   of   their   father   in   the   year   1944,
there   was   a   partition   amongst   the   brothers   and   each
of   the   brothers   was   enjoying   agricultural   lands
separately.   It   was   also   pleaded   that   the   house
properties were also divided amongst the brothers and
the respective branches were living separately.
The   plaintiff   did   not   examine   himself   but   his
son was examined as PW-1 and an acquaintance was also
examined   as   PW-2.   Defendant   No.   1   examined   himself
and   in   his   cross   examination   he   accepted   that   the
plaintiff   was   in   possession   of   one-third   area   from
Survey   No.   102/3   and   Survey   No.   133/1,   namely,   Item
Nos. 6 and 8 in Schedule 'A'. It was the case of the
defendants   that   originally   Item   Nos.   3   and   8   were
ancestral   properties   but   the   parties   had   partitioned

3
the   holding   and   they   were   in   separate   possession   of
their respective shares.
The   defendants   had   also   filed   original   Civil
Suit No. 172 of 1986 seeking injunction in respect of
two   items   from   Schedule   'B'   properties.   Both   the
suits were heard together and disposed of by a common
judgment   by   the   trial   court.   The   suit   filed   by   the
plaintiff-Venkataramanappa   was   dismissed   and   that
filed   by   Byra   Setty   and   Subbanna   for   injunction   was
decreed.
The decision of the trial court was challenged
by   way   of   Regular   Appeal   Nos.   26/1993   and   27/1993   by
Venkataramanappa.   During   the   pendency   of   the   appeal,
the   original   plaintiff   died   and   was   substituted   by
his   heirs.   The   lower   appellate   court   concurred   with
the   findings   rendered   by   the   trial   court   and
dismissed   both   the   appeals   vide   its   judgment   and
order dated 27.10.1999.
The   matter   was   carried   further   by   heirs   of
deceased   Venkataramanappa   by   filing   Regular   Second
Appeal   Nos.   176/2000   and   177/2000.   The   High   Court
accepted the second appeals and reversed the judgment
and   order   rendered   by   the   courts   below.   It   was   found
that   the   oral   and   previous   partition   alleged   by   the
defendants   was   not   proved.   The   High   Court   observed
that   Item   Nos.   3   and   8   were   admittedly   ancestral
properties   and   once   the   theory   of   previous   partition

4
was   not   accepted,   the   plaintiff   was   entitled   to
succeed.   With   this   view,   the   High   Court   accepted   the
second   appeals   and   decreed   the   suit   insofar   as   it
related to Schedule 'A' and Schedule 'B' properties.
In   this   appeal   by   special   leave   filed   by   the
original   defendants,   we   heard   Mr.   S.N.   Bhat,   learned
counsel   for   the   appellants   and   Mr.   Srinivasan,
learned   counsel   for   the   respondents.   In   the
submission   of   Mr.   Bhat,   the   High   Court   was   not
justified   in   setting   aside   the   findings   of   fact
rendered by both the courts below. He relied upon the
decisions of this Court rendered in  Bhagwan Dayal (D)
through  Lrs.    vs.    Mst. Reoti  Devi (D)  through Lrs. ,
AIR   1962   SC   287   and   Mst.   Kharbuja   Kuer     vs.
Jangbahadur   Rai ,   AIR   1963   SC   1203   to   submit   that   the
issues   whether   the   parties   had   separated   and   the
properties   were   partitioned   were   essentially   issues
of fact and as such the findings rendered by both the
courts   below   ought   not   to   have   been   interfered   with
by the High Court.
On   the   other   hand,   Mr.   Srinivasan,   learned
counsel for the respondents, invited our attention to
the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Chinthamani   Ammal     vs.
Nandagopal   Gounder   &   Anr. ,   2007   (4)   SCC   163,   to
submit   that,   in   law,   there   exists   a   presumption   in
regard   to   continuance   of   a   joint   family   amongst
Hindus  and it  is for  the party  which raises  the plea

5
of   partition   to   prove   the   same.   He   further   invited
our   attention   to   the   extracts   of   record   of   rights
with   respect   to   all   the   items   in   Schedule   'A'.   All
these   properties   in   Schedule   'A'   are   shown   in   the
name of defendant No. 1 namely Byra Setty as  Khatedar
and   the   nature   of   possession   is   described   as
"ancestral".
We   find   from   the   record   that   the   house
properties   had   been   completely   partitioned   and   each
of   the   branches   has   been   living   separately.   There,
however,   appears   to   be   force   in   the   contention   that
insofar as agricultural properties are concerned, the
status   of   the   members   continued   to   be   joint.   This   is
well   reflected   by   the   entries   in   the   records   of
rights.   As   admitted   by   Defendant   No.   1,   though   the
properties   item   Nos.   4   and   6   from   Schedule   'A'   were
in   his   name,   part   of   those   properties   were   also   in
cultivating   possession   of   the   plaintiff.   In   the
totality   of   the   circumstances,   in   our   considered
view,   the   High   Court   was   justified   in   interfering   in
its   second   appellate   jurisdiction.   We,   therefore,
affirm the view taken by the High Court in respect of
properties   mentioned   in   Schedule   'A'.   In   our   view,
the properties in Schedule 'B' must be left alone and
if   the   parties   are   holding   separate   shares,   there   is
no need to disturb the same.

6
In   the   circumstances,   the   suit   for   partition
as   filed   by   Venkataramanappa   (since   deceased)   is
decreed   in   respect   of   the   properties   mentioned   in
Schedule   'A'   alone.   The   parties,   namely,   the
plaintiff   and   defendant   Nos.   1   and   2   are   entitled   to
one   third   share   in   said   properties   in   Schedule   'A'.
Schedules   'B'   and   'C'   properties   shall,   however,
remain undisturbed. The High Court decree is modified
to that extent.
While   effecting   the   partition   and   allocating
separate   shares   to   each   of   the   three   parties,
endeavour shall be made to maintain the possession of
the   parties   with   respect   to   the   areas/lands   in   their
occupation.
The   appeal   is   disposed   of   in   aforesaid   terms.
No costs.
...�.�................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
...�.�................J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
NEW DELHI,
SEPTEMBER 13, 2018

7
ITEM NO.101 (PH)         COURT NO.5               SECTION IV-A
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal  No(s).  1632/2007
BYRASETTY (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.                    Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
VENKATARAMANAPPA (D) BY LRS.                       Respondent(s)
(IA No.95317/2017-I/A ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS TO COME ON RECORD
AS THE LRS and IA No.95320/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)

Date : 13-09-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
For Appellant(s)    Mr. S. N. Bhat, AOR
Mr. Priyank Jain, Adv.
Mr. Ravi P., Adv.
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv.
Ms. Garima Jain, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Adv.                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA)                              (RAJINDER KAUR)
     AR-CUM-PS                                       BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)