Date of the Judgment: October 25, 2018
Citation: Not Available in source
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
Can a decades-long property dispute be resolved through the intervention of the Supreme Court, even against the wishes of one party? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice. This case involved a protracted battle over property division, where the Court ultimately imposed a settlement to bring the litigation to an end. The bench comprised of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, with the judgment authored by Justice Kurian Joseph.
Case Background
The legal battle began in 1984 when the first respondent filed an application for letters of administration, designated as LAOP No. 306 of 1984. This application was contested, leading to its conversion into a formal suit. The trial court initially dismissed the suit. However, the High Court reversed this decision, prompting the legal representatives of the first defendant to appeal to the Supreme Court. Over the years, several attempts were made to reach an amicable resolution, but these efforts were unsuccessful due to minor disagreements between the parties.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1984 | First respondent filed an application for letters of administration (LAOP No. 306 of 1984). |
| Not Specified | Application was contested and converted into a suit. |
| Not Specified | Trial court dismissed the suit. |
| Not Specified | High Court reversed the trial court’s decision. |
| October 25, 2018 | Supreme Court disposed of the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The case began with an application for letters of administration, which was later converted into a suit due to contestation. The trial court initially ruled against the applicant, but the High Court overturned this decision. This reversal led to the appeal before the Supreme Court by the legal representatives of the first defendant.
Legal Framework
This case primarily involves the Supreme Court’s exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
The judgment also touches upon the concept of wills and their supersession by a court decree. The court stated that the two Wills (Exhibit A1 & B1) will stand superseded by the decree passed by the Supreme Court.
Arguments
The appellants, represented by Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, and the respondents, represented by Mr. A. Raghunath, presented their respective proposals for a settlement. The appellants submitted a statement along with a sketch, while the respondents also produced their own statement and sketch. However, these proposals did not align, indicating continued disagreement on the property division.
The appellants vehemently objected to the division of properties as proposed by the respondents. Despite these objections, the Supreme Court proceeded to pass a judgment based on the sketch prepared by Mr. C. K. Venu, citing the need to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Submission |
|
| Respondents’ Submission |
|
The innovativeness of the argument was in the Supreme Court’s decision to invoke Article 142 to impose a settlement, despite the appellants’ objections, to bring an end to the long-standing dispute.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:
- How to resolve the long-standing property dispute and ensure complete justice between the parties, given their inability to reach a settlement?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| How to resolve the long-standing property dispute and ensure complete justice between the parties? | The Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, decided to divide the properties based on the sketch prepared by Mr. C.K. Venu, as proposed by the respondents. This was done to put an end to the three-decade-long litigation, despite the appellants’ objections. |
Authorities
The Court did not rely on any specific case laws or legal provisions other than Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
| Authority | How Considered |
|---|---|
| Article 142 of the Constitution of India | The Court invoked this article to pass a decree for complete justice, overriding the objections of the appellants. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ proposal and objections | The Court acknowledged the appellants’ proposal and objections but did not accept them. The Court proceeded to impose a settlement based on the respondents’ proposal. |
| Respondents’ proposal | The Court accepted the respondents’ proposal based on the sketch prepared by Mr. C.K. Venu. |
The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to pass a decree for complete justice. The Court stated that the two Wills (Exhibit A1 & B1) will stand superseded.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The primary consideration for the Court was to bring an end to the long-standing litigation. The Court emphasized the need for complete justice, which, in its view, could only be achieved by imposing a settlement based on the respondents’ proposal. The Court also took into consideration the fact that several attempts at amicable settlement had failed.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for complete justice | 40% |
| End to long-standing litigation | 30% |
| Failure of amicable settlement | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s decision was driven by its constitutional duty to ensure complete justice, particularly in cases where protracted litigation has caused hardship to the parties involved. The Court found that the only way to resolve the dispute was to impose the settlement based on the sketch prepared by Mr. C. K. Venu, even if it meant overriding the objections of one of the parties.
The Supreme Court stated:
- “…for doing complete justice between the parties, we are of the view that it would be just, fair, reasonable and equitable to have the properties divided in terms of the sketch prepared by Mr. C. K. Venu and as produced by the respondents.”
- “We make it clear that this Judgment is passed despite the vehement objections advanced by the appellants, for doing complete justice between the parties in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”
- “This decree will be the source of title to the properties of the respective sharers.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court can invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to impose settlements in long-standing disputes to ensure complete justice.
- The Court can override objections of parties when it deems necessary to resolve a matter and bring an end to protracted litigation.
- Court decrees can supersede existing wills in resolving property disputes.
Directions
The trial court was directed to send a copy of the decree to the Sub-Registrar concerned for the purpose of entry in the official records.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to impose a settlement in a property dispute to ensure complete justice, even if it means overriding the objections of one of the parties. This case reinforces the wide scope of the Court’s powers under Article 142 to do complete justice.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Vasudevan Embanthiri vs. Gopalakrishnan demonstrates its willingness to use its constitutional powers to resolve long-standing disputes. By invoking Article 142, the Court imposed a settlement to bring an end to a three-decade-long legal battle, prioritizing complete justice and finality over the objections of one of the parties. This case highlights the Court’s role in ensuring that disputes are resolved efficiently and equitably.