9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the joint family in terms of the registered document dated 18.06.1960. 3. P.V.G. Raju divorced Kusum Madgoankar and married Madhuri Gajapathi Raju, Respondent No.1 herein, in 1963. P. Alaakanarayana Gajapathi Raju, P. Monish Gajapathi Raju and Sudhani Devi were born to them. The dispute that arose amongst the family members of P.V.G. Raju was referred to Arbitration to Kumaraja of Bobbili who passed an award on 28.06.1971 allotting the properties to eight members of the family. The said award was duly registered and made a decree of court on 21.04.1972 in O.S. No.70 of 1971. 4. Thereafter, the Appellants filed a suit bearing OS No. 29/74 in the sub-court at Vizianagaram seeking division of certain properties by metes and bounds. The suit was partly decreed by the District Court on 31.10.1979. Against the decree dated 31.10.1979, the Appellants filed an Appeal and the Defendants in this suit filed certain cross-objections. On 24.07.1992, the High Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants while partly allowing the cross-objections filed by the Defendants in the suit. Not satisfied with the judgment of the Hight Court, the Appellants filed SLP which was converted as Civi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sible properties (movable and Impartible) of the family into seven equal shares and allotment of one share to each of the parties here, it is directed that the properties should be so divided and allotted among the parties. However, it will not follow that each sharer will be entitled to a one seventh share in each asset as some items have been divided differently in 1960 and 1971 and these divisions have been accepted by us with slight modification. (2) The Tribunal has considered the partitions of 1960 and 1971 on their merits and is of opinion that the allotments made at these partitions do not require to be disturbed, except to a small extent specified against the relevant Items and, necessarily, to the extent they are affected by the death of PVG requiring a division of the items allotted to his share at these partitions. 3) The lands described in Schedule I-A and II-B to II-H have already been partitioned in 1960 and 1971. Though the division is not in equal shares, there is no need to disturb the earlier allotments and inequalities, if any, will be made up in the final adjustments that will require to be made. The division and allotments will be made as per the terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Schedule I-A, Items 2 to 6 of Schedule 1-B and items 3 and 4 of Schedule 11-A. The half share of property In Item 7 of Schedule II-A Is stated to have been disposed of by him and it is agreed that this can be left out of this award. This apart, the partition of the Item Schedules IA and II-B to II-H have already been effected by stamped and registered documents and are not really under this document. Hence these items are not effectively the subject matter of partition under this document. So also, Items 2, 6 and 7 of Schedule V which have been found to belong exclusively to RI and the items set out in Schedule X (also in items 20 and 22 of Schedule V and item 16 of Schedule VI) have been found to be not partible among all the sharers and though the issue of their partibility has been decided here, no partition of these items is being directed under this document. (8) The more difficult and cumbersome process is that of carrying out the physical division envisaged herein. This Is usually done by Commissioners appointed for the purpose. However the Tribunal wishes to strongly impress on the parties that all the further steps in this regard will consume time, expense and energy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter and, in so doing, it will also be necessary to consider the value of the properties allotted to each of the sharers and direct such adjustments as may be necessary monetarily or in specie. One more important aspect to be considered at the time of the final discussion will be that of the mesne profits, if any, payable by the shares in respect of properties allotted to other remaining in their possession. This will need a detailed consideration from several angles, extents, date, quantum etc. and will have to be considered later. For these purposes, the tribunal will resume its sittings and pass appropriate orders after the parties have had time to study the contents of this award." 8. Aggrieved by interim award dated 26.05.2007, Respondent No.1 filed a Petition under Section 34 of the Act which was dismissed by the District Judge, Vizianagaram on 24.06.2013. The District Judge, Vizianagaram refused to interfere with the award by rejecting the contention of Respondent No.1 that the award suffers from patent illegality and jurisdictional errors. Against the order of the District Judge, Vizianagaram dated 24.06.2013, appeals were filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 37 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring were initially given to Respondent No.1 by P.V.G. Raju as stridhana at the time of engagement and marriage. The Arbitrator relied upon the written statement filed by P.V.G. Raju in O.S. No.29 of 1974, the evidence of Respondent No.1 in the said suit as well as the affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 before him to come to a conclusion that 99 diamonds and one emerald ring were initially given to her as stridhana property. However, the Arbitrator observed that these 99 diamonds and one emerald ring were given by the Respondent No. 1 to the Claimants (Appellant herein) in the year 1971 pursuant to the 1971 award for partition. The Arbitrator took note of the fact that prior to the year 1971, the stridhana property was shown in the wealth tax returns by P.V.G. Raju. There is no reference to the 99 diamonds and one emerald ring in the wealth tax returns of P.V.G. Raju after 1971. The Appellants claimed before the Arbitrator that 99 diamonds and one emerald ring were voluntarily given by Respondent No. 1 to them. Whereas, Respondent No.1 pleaded that she was coerced to part with 99 diamonds and one emerald ring. The request of Respondent No.1 that the said stridhana property should b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property of the Respondent No. 1. A plain reading of the terms of reference No.(iii) would indicate the fact that the said jewellery being given to the Appellants in 1971 has been taken note of. Mere handing over of the jewellery to the Appellants in 1971, therefore, cannot be the reason for holding that the Appellants are entitled to retain the jewellery. The Arbitrator has concluded that 99 diamonds and one emerald ring, are in fact, stridhana property of Respondent No.1. That concludes point No.(iii) of the terms of reference. Point No.(iv) of the terms of reference relates to division of 99 diamonds and one emerald ring among 7 sharers only in case the Arbitrator comes to a conclusion that they are stridhana property. In the interim award, the Arbitrator heavily relied upon the award of 1971 and the fact of the 99 diamonds and one emerald ring being handed over to the Claimants, for the purpose of deciding that Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to claim the return of the said jewellery. The Arbitrator has committed a jurisdictional error by travelling beyond the terms of reference. Further, the Arbitrator has committed an error in permitting the Appellants to retain the jeweller ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
