Supreme Court of India

MOSES WILSON AND ORS.versusKASTURIBA AND ORS.

Citation: 2007 INSC 956
Decided: 20 September 2007
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: A K MATHURMARKANDEY KATJU

Holding

The Supreme Court ordered that the entire property subject to the litigation be divided in equal shares between the parties, to be effected by the District Judge within six months.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard Civil Appeals Nos. 1062‑1065 arising from a suit filed in 1947 for Rs 7,000, which involved an attachment before judgment of the defendant's dry fish and a third‑party claim over that fish. After more than six decades of litigation, the Court, with the parties' consent, ordered that the entire property subject to the suit be divided equally between the appellants and respondents. The division is to be carried out by the District Judge of Kanyakumari (or an Additional District Judge nominated by him) within six months, with the parties free to approach the Court for clarification if dissatisfied. The Court also reiterated its concern over the chronic delay in disposing of cases, citing recent incidents of public loss of faith in the judiciary. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of on the terms of equal division and a directive for prompt case management was issued.

Issues considered

Whether a decades‑old civil suit can be conclusively resolved by ordering equal division of the disputed property between the parties.
Whether the District Judge has the jurisdiction to execute the division of multiple properties as directed by the Supreme Court.
What procedural steps should be followed to effect the division of the property within a stipulated time‑frame.
How the Court should address systemic delays in the disposal of civil matters.

Subjects

property divisionattachment before judgmentcivil appealdelay in justicecase managementequal sharedistrict judge jurisdictionold pending suit

Judgment

A                      MOSES WILSON AND ORS.
                                      V.                                      ~
                         KASTURIBA AND ORS.

                          SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
B
          [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]


         Administration ofJustice:

     Disposal of old matters-Suit for recovery of money filed in
c 1947-0rder for attachment before judgment challenged-Case
    involving complicated issues stretching over 60 years-Held: With
    consent ofparties the entire property which is the subject matter nf
    litigation is directed to be divided by the District Judge concerned in
    equal shares between the two parties.
D
         Administration ofJustice:

         Curing the delay in disposal of cases in courts-Need for
    emphasized-Authorities concerned suggested to do the needful in the
    matter urgently.
E
         Rajindra Singh (D) through LRs. and Ors. v. Prem Mai and Ors.,
    [2007] 9 SCR 300, relied on and reiterated.
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1062-
                                                                              -1
    1065of2007.
F                                                                              ""'
         From the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.1998 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. Nos. 3679 to 3682of1987.
      Dr. A. Francis Julian, Swnit Kumar and Amit Kumar Mishra (for
G Arputham, Aruna & Co.) for the Appellants.
        K. Ramamoorthy, V. Prabhakar, Ramjee Prasad and Revathy               't-
    Raghavan for the Respondents.
        The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                     146
                MOSES WILSON v. KASTURIBA                                147

     We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.                            A
     We are disposing of all the four appeals by a common order.
      These appeals arise out of a suit filed in 194 7 and subsequent
Proceedings. The suit was for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- and there was an
order for attachment before judgment of the dry fish of the defendant. A B
third party claimed ownership of the dry fish and he applied for release.
of the attachment order. It is not necessary to give further details of the
case because the facts involved are very complicated stretching over 60
years. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties we
cut short the matter and direct that the entire property which is the subject c
matter of this litigation may be divided in equal shares between the two
parties. Half share should be given to the appellants and the other half
should be given to the respondents.
      To decide which part should go to the appellants and which part
should go to the respondents, as many properties are involved, it is just D
and proper that this exercise may be done by the District Judge, ,.
Kanyakumari at Nagercoil himself or by the Additional District Judge
nominated by the District Judge. The District Judge may issue notices to
both parties and divide the properties in two equal shares. If any person
has any grievance against the order passed by the District Judge (or E
A.DJ., as the case may be), it will be open for either of the parties to
approach this Court for further clarification. The District Judge,
Kanyakumari, Nagercoil (or A.DJ. nominated by him) is directed to
dispose of the matter preferably within a period of six months.
                                                                          F
      Let all the records which are available here be transmitted to the
District Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil.
     The appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
      Before parting with this case, we again express our deep concern G
at the delay in disposing of cases in our Courts. Recently in Civil Appeal
No. 1307 of2001 titled Rajindra Singh (Dead) thr. Lrs. & Ors. v. Prem
Mai & Ors. decided on 23rd August, 2007 we had expressed our deep
anguish about this situation, and had observed that because of delay in
disposal of cases people in this country are fast losing faith in the judiciary. H
    148           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2007] 10 S.C.R.


A We saw in the media news oflynching of suspected thieves in Bihar's
  Vaishali District, the gunning down of an undertrial prisoner outside Patna
  City Civil Court, and other incidents where people have taken the law
  into their own hands. This is obviously because many people have started
  thinking that justice will not be done in the Courts due to the delays in
B Court proceedings. This is indeed an alarming state of affairs, and we
  once again request the concerned authorities to do the needful in the
  matter urgently before the situation goes totally out of control.
    RP.                                                Appeals disposed of.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "property division"Sign in to search