1975 (9) TMI 186 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the partition of immovable properties.
2. Validity of the partition of movable properties.
3. Allegations of fraud and undue influence in the partition.
4. Calculation of the disparity in the partitioned shares.
5. Entitlement and quantification of the plaintiffs' share.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Partition of Immovable Properties:
The plaintiffs challenged the partition of immovable properties on the grounds that no valuation was fixed according to the market value, and they were not given any share in the agricultural properties. The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the partition of immovable properties was neither unjust nor unfair. The High Court upheld this finding, stating, "The scheme of the division of the immovable properties seems to us to be fair and we cannot say that the plaintiffs' father (5th defendant) acted against the interests of his sons or that the 1st defendant took any advantage of his position as the eldest member of the family and allotted to himself the best among the properties available for division."

The Supreme Court affirmed this concurrent finding of fact, emphasizing that the properties were divided equally based on their capitalized value, and there was no evidence of unfairness or detriment to the minors' interests. The Court stated, "We do not feel inclined to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact which is hereby affirmed."

2. Validity of the Partition of Movable Properties:
The plaintiffs argued that the partition of movable properties was unjust and unfair, as defendant No. 1 received a significantly higher value of properties compared to defendant No. 5. The Trial Court found that the partition of movable properties was ex facie unjust and unfair and ordered a re-partition. The High Court quantified the disparity in the share of the plaintiffs and passed a decree for 2/5th share of Rs. 17,700.

The Supreme Court found that there was a clear disparity of Rs. 10,000 in the partition of movable properties, as evidenced by Ext. B-3. Additionally, the Court accepted the plaintiffs' claim of a suppressed cash amount of Rs. 65,000, leading to a total disparity of Rs. 37,500. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs' share would be 2/5th of this amount, i.e., Rs. 15,000, and added interest at the rate of 6% per annum for 35 years, totaling Rs. 46,500.

3. Allegations of Fraud and Undue Influence:
The plaintiffs initially alleged that the partition was secured by practicing fraud and undue influence. However, during the arguments before the Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the appellants did not press the plea of fraud and undue influence. The Court noted, "Mr. F. S. Nariman the learned counsel for the appellants did not at all press the plea of fraud and undue influence taken by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court."

4. Calculation of the Disparity in the Partitioned Shares:
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence and found that the disparity in the partitioned shares was significantly higher than what the High Court had determined. The Court stated, "Thus the total disparity comes to Rs. 37,500/- and the share of the minor plaintiffs would be 2/5th which comes to Rs. 15,000/-." The Court added interest at the rate of 6% per annum for 35 years, resulting in a total amount of Rs. 46,500.

5. Entitlement and Quantification of the Plaintiffs' Share:
The Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to Rs. 46,500, representing their share of the movable properties. The Court modified the decree of the High Court, stating, "We, therefore, allow the appeal in part and modify the decree of the High Court to the extent that there will be a decree for a sum of Rs. 46,500/- in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants which represents their share of the movable properties of which they were deprived of."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court's decree to award the plaintiffs Rs. 46,500, including interest, for their share of the movable properties. The Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the interests of minors and ensuring a fair and just partition. The Court also highlighted the principle that a partition can be reopened if it is proven to be unjust and unfair to minors, irrespective of the length of time since the partition took place.