1964 (9) TMI 66 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Ownership and inheritance rights of the property.
2. Validity of the sale transaction involving the property.
3. Compensation for improvements made on the property.
4. Entitlement to specific possession versus symbolic possession.
5. Application of the equity principle in partition suits.
6. Abatement of the appeal due to non-impleading of all legal representatives.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Inheritance Rights of the Property:
The litigation originated over the ownership rights of plots 599 and 600 in Sisamau, Kanpur. The deceased respondent, Shyam Sundari, claimed a third share in the property as the heir of her father, Babu Har Charan Lal, who co-owned the plots with his two brothers, Kanhaiya Lal and Sheo Narain. After Babu Har Charan Lal's death, his widow, Tulsa Kunwar, and daughter, Shyam Sundari, were his legal heirs. However, Kanhaiya Lal and Sheo Narain sold the entire property to Lala Mata Din, ignoring the rights of Tulsa Kunwar and Shyam Sundari. This led Shyam Sundari to file a suit for the recovery of her third share.

2. Validity of the Sale Transaction:
The sale transaction by Kanhaiya Lal and Sheo Narain to Lala Mata Din was contested by Shyam Sundari. The trial court initially dismissed her claim, but the High Court reversed this decision, granting her a decree for possession of her third share. The High Court found that the sale transaction did not consider the rightful share of Shyam Sundari, making her claim valid.

3. Compensation for Improvements Made on the Property:
Mata Din claimed compensation for improvements made on the property under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, arguing that he had constructed buildings in good faith. However, the High Court disallowed this claim, stating that Mata Din had notice of Shyam Sundari's claim before completing the constructions. The court held that Mata Din could not plead equity based on improvements made with knowledge of the rightful owner's claim.

4. Entitlement to Specific Possession versus Symbolic Possession:
When Shyam Sundari sought execution of her decree, Mata Din contested her entitlement to specific possession. The High Court ruled that she was only entitled to symbolic possession and should file a separate suit for partition. Consequently, Shyam Sundari filed suit 9 of 1939 for partition and specific possession of her third share. The trial court granted her a monetary compensation instead of specific possession, but the High Court reversed this, granting her a decree for a share of the property.

5. Application of the Equity Principle in Partition Suits:
The trial court initially applied the equity principle, considering the improvements made by Mata Din and ruling that Shyam Sundari should receive monetary compensation instead of specific possession. However, the High Court held that Mata Din's actions were not bona fide, as he completed the constructions with knowledge of Shyam Sundari's claim. The court ruled that Mata Din could not claim equity based on wrongful acts and granted Shyam Sundari specific possession of her third share.

6. Abatement of the Appeal Due to Non-Impleading of All Legal Representatives:
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the abatement of the appeal due to the non-impleading of all legal representatives of the deceased respondent, Shyam Sundari. The court held that the appeal did not abate as the impleaded legal representatives sufficiently represented the estate of the deceased. The court emphasized that diligent and bona fide efforts to bring legal representatives on record within the time allowed by law prevent abatement. However, the court noted that the appellant should bring on record any omitted legal representatives once made aware of the default, but decided not to adjourn the hearing as the appeal lacked merit.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree granting Shyam Sundari specific possession of her third share in the property. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments and emphasizing that Mata Din could not claim equity based on wrongful acts. The court also addressed the procedural issue of abatement, ruling that the appeal did not abate due to the diligent efforts to bring legal representatives on record.