Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Padmidigantam Sri Narasimha, of the Supreme Court was hearing an an appeal against the Karnataka High Court's final judgment and order dated January 22, 2008, in which the court had dismissed the appellants' appeal and affirmed the order of the Trial Court, filed by the appellants seeking dissolution of Partnership firm, High Clere Stud and Agricultural Farm.

After hearing both the parties in detail, the court stated that their impression that the parties must settle their disputes amicably grew stronger, and opined that adversarial litigation focuses on determining the truth or falsity of every disputed fact, which is usually technical in nature.

Court added, “When a Court takes a decision, there is no scope for reconciliation or sharing, which is essential for enduring happiness in a family” and further opined that a decision based on the adjustment of equities between the parties will be far more beneficial than one based on inferences drawn from disputed facts and pure legalities.

 

The Bench observed, “We are inclined to take this step because the parties are closely related to each other.”

Court added that the order is limited in scope, and it will not deprive the Respondents of the benefits of their concurrently successful litigation.

Noting that the appellants have been contesting the case for more than two decades, the division bench opined that such an order would be beneficial not only to the Appellants but also to the Respondents herein, in terms of building and reviving the relationship between close family members.

While upholding the impugned judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court, the division bench directed the appellants to be entitled to three acres of the eight acres of land set aside under the orders of the Trial Court, the High Court, and the Apex Court.

Court noted that the Firm leased one acre to M/s Karnataka Dyeing and Processing Company, a registered partnership firm in which the first Appellant is a partner and that this partnership made certain investments in the leased portion of the property.

Conclusively, the court ordered, “We direct that the three acres to be allotted to the Appellant should include this one acre of land. The remaining two acres shall be allotted by the Respondents to the Appellants from the eight acres, which may ideally be abutting the said one acre so that the Appellants can enjoy a contiguous piece of three acres of land. We will, however, leave it to the Respondents to decide upon the location of the two acres as per their choice. 

Case Title: Usha Gopirathnam & Ors. v. P.S. Ranganathan (D) Thr. LRs & Ors.