Susana Rani David & Anr. v. Esther Jaspher Swaminathan & Ors.

December 7, 2015

(2016) 16 SCC 795

Constitution of India — Art. 132 — Appeals — Appellants had relied upon a sale deed dt. 29-6-2001 executed by Defendant 4, by virtue of which some property had been sold by her — Said document has not been exhibited before any court — Sale deed is permitted to be placed on record so that it may be looked into by the High Court and consider its effects on the compromise deed entered into among some of the parties — Direction issued that a review application shall be filed by the appellants before the High Court and the High Court shall permit the appellants to do the needful to get the said document exhibited — High Court shall consider the effect of the said sale deed after hearing the concerned paties and if necessary, may modify the impugned judgement and pass appropriate order in accordance with law — As shares of other defendants have been purchased by Defendant 8, the amount, if any, which might become payable to Defendant 4 shall be paid by Defendant 8 — It is also agreed among the parties during the course of hearing of these appeals that the compromise entered into among the defendants which has been referred to in the impugned judgment will not get affected by this order except qua Defendant 4 and the same shall be considered to be a valid compromise qua others who have not disputed it — Therefore, the impugned order, to the extent it nullifies the compromise, set aside (Paras 4, 6 and 8)

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

(Anil R. Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)

Susana Rani David & Anr. _____________ Appellant(s)

Esther Jaspher Swaminathan & Ors. _______ Respondent(s)

Civil Appeal Nos. 14122-14123 of 2015, decided on December 7, 2015

[arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 14381-14382 of 2014]

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 14124-14125 of 2015, [arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 22795-22796 of 2014]

The Judgement of the court was delivered by

Anil R. Dave, J.:—

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and the facts pertaining to the case, we find that the main dispute in the appeals is only with regard to the share of defendant No. 4-Victoria Srinivasan.

4. In the course of hearing of these appeals, the appellants had relied upon a sale deed dated 29^th June, 2001 executed by defendant No. 4, by virtue of which some property had been sold by her. The said document has not been exhibited before any court. The said sale deed is permitted to be placed on record so that it may be looked into by the High Court and consider its effects on the compromise deed entered into among some of the parties.

5. In these cicumstances, we dispose of these appeals with a direction that a review application shall be filed by the appellants within four weeks from today before the High Court and the High Court shall permit the appellants to do the needful to get the said document exhibited.

6. The High Court shall consider the effect of the said sale deed after hearing the concerned paties and if necessary, may modify the impugned judgement and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

7. It may further be noted that as shares of other defendants have been purchased by defendant No. 8, the amount, if any, which might become payable to defendant No. 4 shall be paid by defendant No. 8.

8. It is also agreed among the parties during the course of hearing of these appeals that the compromise entered into among the defendants which has been referred to in the impugned judgment will not get affected by this order except qua defendant No. 4 and the same shall be considered to be a valid compromise qua others who have not disputed it. Therefore, the impugned order, to the extent it nullifies the compromise, is set aside. The appeals are allowed to the extent that the compromise to which defendant No. 4 was not a party, shall remain as it is.

9. The registry of the High Court will fix the date for hearing of the review application in the month of February, 2016. Only defendant Nos. 4, 8 and 9 or their representatives shall be heard by the High Court.

10. Pending applications stand disposed of.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

———

You may also like