Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2016) 02 SC CK 0077

Pampati Sathamma vs Pampat Gangaram

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 11 February 2016 · Citation: (2016) 3 JT 264 : (2016) 12 SCC 401

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil R. Dave and A.K. Goel, JJ.
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal Nos. 3549 and 3548 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 187 words

Anil R. Dave, J.—1. Applications for substitution are allowed.

2.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.

3.

We have considered the contents of the impugned judgment as well as the inter-se relationship among the parties and in the interest of justice, we think it just and proper if the Respondent gives 1/3rd of the properties in question to all the Appellants i.e. the sister of the Respondent and legal heirs of the deceased sister. 1/3rd of the properties or value thereof shall be given by the Respondent to the Appellants within six months from today.

4.

According to the Respondent, at present value of the property is approximately Rs. 60 lakhs. However, if the Appellants do not agree to the said valuation, it would be open to them to raise the said contention in the appropriate proceeding before the Trial Court. The Trial Court would determine value of the property and pass appropriate order in the execution proceedings.

5.

The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeals are allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs.