{"id":57601,"date":"2009-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009"},"modified":"2015-02-09T09:24:50","modified_gmt":"2015-02-09T03:54:50","slug":"narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n
                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n         CIVIL APPEAL NO.8290          OF 2009\n     (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)NO.27909 OF 2008)\n\n\n\nNARENDRA KANTE                                     ... Petitioner\n\n          Vs.\n\n\nANURADHA KANTE & ORS.                              ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    This appeal is directed against the judgment<\/p>\n
and order dated 13th October, 2008, passed by the<\/p>\n
Gwalior    Bench    of    the   Madhya   Pradesh     High    Court<\/p>\n
dismissing      Miscellaneous      Appeal   No.478      of   2007<\/p>\n
filed     by     the      appellant      herein.      The     said
\n                                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
Miscellaneous    Appeal       had   been    preferred      by   the<\/p>\n
appellant    against    the    order   dated    14th   February,<\/p>\n
2007,   passed   by     5th    Additional     District     Judge,<\/p>\n
Gwalior, in Civil Suit No.08A of 2006 filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant    rejecting        the   appellant’s      application<\/p>\n
under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   The    appellant    herein      had    filed    the   above-<\/p>\n
mentioned     suit     for     declaration     and     permanent<\/p>\n
injunction and also mandatory injunction in respect<\/p>\n
of the suit property situated at Nadigate Jayendra<\/p>\n
Ganj, Lashkar, Gwalior, bearing Survey No.37\/903 on<\/p>\n
the ground that the suit property was the ancestral<\/p>\n
property of his father, Bapu Saheb Kante, who had<\/p>\n
died intestate on 13th May, 1976. The application<\/p>\n
for ad-interim injunction had been filed in the<\/p>\n
suit which was rejected by the Trial Court on the<\/p>\n
ground that a partition had been effected between<\/p>\n
the legal heirs of Bapu Saheb Kante.                It was also
\n                                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
held that a Family Settlement had been effected<\/p>\n
between the heirs of Bapu Saheb Kante, whereby Smt.<\/p>\n
Putli Bai and Surendra Kante, the widow and son of<\/p>\n
Bapu Saheb Kante, acquired a 50% share of House<\/p>\n
No.95\/21. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the<\/p>\n
widow    and   daughter   of   late   Surendra      Kante,    and<\/p>\n
after his death their names were recorded in the<\/p>\n
Municipal records.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.     At this juncture it may be pertinent to mention<\/p>\n
that    Bapu   Saheb   Kante   is   said   to    have   had   two<\/p>\n
wives, Smt. Putli Bai and the mother of Jai Singh<\/p>\n
Rao. The appellant herein is one of the sons of<\/p>\n
Bapu Saheb Kante through his wife, Smt. Putli Bai.<\/p>\n
When, after the death of Bapu Saheb Kante a son by<\/p>\n
his second wife, Jai Singh Rao, came to claim a<\/p>\n
share    in    his   estate,   a    family      settlement    was<\/p>\n
arrived at by which the properties of Bapu Saheb<\/p>\n
Kante were divided amongst the heirs by a Family<\/p>\n
Arrangement dated 8th February, 1967, by metes and
\n                                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
bounds. Under the said arrangement, Jai Singh Rao<\/p>\n
was allowed to retain possession of plot No.25\/528<\/p>\n
and after his death on 15th June, 1971, his wife and<\/p>\n
children were allowed to live in the said premises.<\/p>\n
However, since the concession granted to them was<\/p>\n
misused, Surendra Kante filed a suit against them<\/p>\n
for     possession     in     respect        of   the   property       in<\/p>\n
dispute and the same was partly decreed on 14th<\/p>\n
September, 1993.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.     First Appeal No.76 of 1993 was filed by the<\/p>\n
legal heirs of Jai Singh Rao, wherein it was sought<\/p>\n
to be asserted that no partition had at all been<\/p>\n
effected in respect of the properties of late Bapu<\/p>\n
Saheb     Kante   and       that       the   alleged    document       of<\/p>\n
partition could not be acted upon since the same<\/p>\n
had not been registered and was not, therefore,<\/p>\n
admissible in evidence.                In the First Appeal it was<\/p>\n
held    that   there    was        a    previous    oral   partition<\/p>\n
which was reduced into writing later on, on 8th
\n                                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
February, 1967, which could in fact be said to be a<\/p>\n
Memorandum of Partition in the eyes of law.             It was<\/p>\n
observed that while a document of partition does<\/p>\n
require registration, the Memorandum of Partition<\/p>\n
subsequently     executed     after       an   oral   partition<\/p>\n
entered into on the basis of a mutual agreement<\/p>\n
could not be said to be inadmissible on account of<\/p>\n
non-registration, since the same did not require<\/p>\n
registration within the meaning of Section 17 of<\/p>\n
the Registration Act, 1908.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.     The High Court accepted the contention that a<\/p>\n
partition had been effected between the heirs of<\/p>\n
Bapu    Saheb   Kante   and   that    a   document    had   been<\/p>\n
executed in that regard on 8th February, 1967, and<\/p>\n
that it was not open to the defendants, as well as<\/p>\n
to the predecessor-in-title of Jai Singh Rao, to<\/p>\n
wriggle out of the said agreement which had been<\/p>\n
admitted by the defendants.          The First Appeal filed<\/p>\n
by Surendra Kante was allowed and the other appeal
\n                                                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
filed by the predecessor-in-interest of Jai Singh<\/p>\n
Rao was dismissed.                 A Letters Patent Appeal was<\/p>\n
filed by Jai Singh Rao questioning the judgment and<\/p>\n
decree passed by the Trial Court, which was also<\/p>\n
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court<\/p>\n
upon    holding       that       the     partition     deed      dated       8th<\/p>\n
February,          1967,    is     a     Memorandum         of   Partition<\/p>\n
pertaining to a previous oral partition.<\/p>\n
7.     In    the    present       suit    filed   by    the      appellant<\/p>\n
herein an attempt has been made to make out a case<\/p>\n
that the alleged partition deed of 8th February,<\/p>\n
1967,       was    executed       only     with   the       intention        of<\/p>\n
giving a separate share to Jai Singh Rao and the<\/p>\n
rest of the properties remained joint as there was<\/p>\n
no partition by metes and bounds.                            Accordingly,<\/p>\n
the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 had no right to execute<\/p>\n
an   agreement        and    Special       Powers      of    Attorney        in<\/p>\n
respect      of     the    suit    property       in    favour     of    the<\/p>\n
Defendant Nos.8 and 9 on 27th November, 2004, nor
\n                                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
did the Defendant Nos.8 and 9 have any right to<\/p>\n
execute a sale deed in favour of Defendant No.10 on<\/p>\n
31st March, 2006.       The appellant herein prayed for a<\/p>\n
decree      of     permanent     injunction        against     the<\/p>\n
defendants not to deal with the property without a<\/p>\n
partition having been effected and also prayed for<\/p>\n
a mandatory injunction on the defendants to remove<\/p>\n
the wall which had been erected in the disputed<\/p>\n
property.        The appellant herein also prayed for a<\/p>\n
grant of temporary injunction which was rejected by<\/p>\n
the Trial Court on 14th February, 2007, upon holding<\/p>\n
that    a   partition    had   been     effected    between    the<\/p>\n
legal heirs of Bapu Saheb Kante and that the Family<\/p>\n
Settlement       had   been   reduced    into   writing   on       8th<\/p>\n
February, 1967.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.     Before the High Court proof of partition and<\/p>\n
the Family Settlement, which was also accepted by<\/p>\n
the appellant herein without any objection, were<\/p>\n
produced, as was the decision of the High Court in
\n                                                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
First   Appeal      No.9    of    1994     in     which    the     learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge had held that the documents of 8th<\/p>\n
February,     1967,       had    been      held    to     be   a      Family<\/p>\n
Settlement for which no registration was required<\/p>\n
under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.<\/p>\n
It was also urged that since the disputed property<\/p>\n
had   come    to    the     share    of     Surendra       Kante,       and,<\/p>\n
thereafter, to the Respondents Nos.1 and 2, they<\/p>\n
had the right to transfer their share in favour of<\/p>\n
the transferees and that the defendant No.10 was a<\/p>\n
bona fide purchaser for value.                  It was also pointed<\/p>\n
out that the decision of the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
had been upheld by the Division Bench.<\/p>\n
9.    The    High   Court       in   the       Miscellaneous          Appeal<\/p>\n
observed     that    the     matter       of    grant     of   temporary<\/p>\n
injunction had been considered in detail by the<\/p>\n
Trial Court which had exercised its jurisdiction in<\/p>\n
refusing     to     grant       temporary       injunction         to    the<\/p>\n
appellants.          It     also      observed          that     in     case
\n                                                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
injunction was granted, it would be the defendants<\/p>\n
who would suffer irreparable loss and injury.                            It<\/p>\n
was    observed        that     the     defendant       No.10,        the<\/p>\n
transferee from Respondents\/defendant Nos.1 and 2,<\/p>\n
had acquired a right to the suit property.                               He<\/p>\n
was, therefore, allowed to carry out construction<\/p>\n
activities      over      the      disputed         land,     but     was<\/p>\n
restrained      from      alienating      or     transferring        the<\/p>\n
property in question or from creating any third<\/p>\n
party rights during the pendency of the civil suit.<\/p>\n
The Trial Court was, however, directed to decide<\/p>\n
the suit expeditiously and to dispose of the same<\/p>\n
within six months from the date of appearance of<\/p>\n
the parties before the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10. Questioning the aforesaid decision of the High<\/p>\n
Court,    Mr.     Vivek       Kumar    Tankha,       learned    Senior<\/p>\n
Advocate, submitted that the High Court had erred<\/p>\n
in    accepting    the     stand      taken    on    behalf     of    the<\/p>\n
defendants\/respondents                herein     that       a       valid
\n                                                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
partition had taken place by metes and bounds, on<\/p>\n
account whereof the Respondents\/defendant Nos.1 and<\/p>\n
2, as the heirs of Surendra Kante, had acquired<\/p>\n
title to his share in the suit property and were,<\/p>\n
therefore,     competent       to    dispose   of    the    same    in<\/p>\n
favour of Defendant No.10.            Mr. Tankha urged that a<\/p>\n
partition      of    joint      family    property         could    be<\/p>\n
effected only by metes and bounds and by delivery<\/p>\n
of actual possession.           In the absence of the same,<\/p>\n
it could not be contended that a partition had, in<\/p>\n
fact, been effected between the co-sharers.                        Mr.<\/p>\n
Tankha urged that both the Trial Court, as well as<\/p>\n
the   High     Court,    had     erred   in    pre-supposing            a<\/p>\n
partition between the parties simply on the basis<\/p>\n
of the Deed of Family Settlement executed on 8th<\/p>\n
February,      1967.    It     was   submitted      that     in    the<\/p>\n
absence   of    evidence       of    partition      by    metes    and<\/p>\n
bounds,   the       learned    Courts    below      had    erred    in<\/p>\n
refusing to grant ad-interim injunction as prayed<\/p>\n
for by the appellant since once the portion of the
\n                                                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
property        allegedly         transferred       in     favour    of<\/p>\n
Respondent No.9 was permitted to be developed, the<\/p>\n
very object of the suit would stand frustrated.<\/p>\n
11. Apart from the above, Mr. Tankha urged that the<\/p>\n
learned Courts below had erred in acting upon the<\/p>\n
Deed of Family Settlement executed on 8th February,<\/p>\n
1967, which, in fact, was a Deed of Partition and<\/p>\n
could     not     have     been    acted     upon    without     being<\/p>\n
executed by all the co-sharers and without being<\/p>\n
registered as provided for under Section 17 of the<\/p>\n
Registration Act, 1908.              Mr. Tankha submitted that<\/p>\n
if the Deed of Family Settlement was to be acted<\/p>\n
upon, as has been done by the Courts below, it must<\/p>\n
also    be     held    that   partition       had    been     effected<\/p>\n
thereby         and,     therefore,         the     same      required<\/p>\n
registration.          In the absence thereof, the Courts<\/p>\n
had wrongly placed reliance on the same in refusing<\/p>\n
to     allow     the     appellant’s       prayer    for    grant    of<\/p>\n
temporary       injunction        pending   the     hearing    of   the
\n                                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
suit. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr.<\/p>\n
Tankha referred to and relied upon the decision of<\/p>\n
this Court in M.N. Aryamurthy vs. M.D. Subbaraya<\/p>\n
Setty<\/a> (dead) through LRs. [(1972) 4 SCC 1], wherein<\/p>\n
in the facts of the case it was held by this Court<\/p>\n
that under the Hindu Law if a family arrangement is<\/p>\n
not accepted unanimously, the Family Settlement has<\/p>\n
to fail as a binding agreement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12. Mr. Tankha urged that there could be little<\/p>\n
doubt that in the facts of this case, the balance<\/p>\n
of convenience and inconvenience lay in favour of<\/p>\n
grant of temporary injunction during the pendency<\/p>\n
of the suit, as prayed for by the appellant herein<\/p>\n
as   otherwise       the    appellants    would    suffer<\/p>\n
irreparable loss and injury.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13. Mr.      Anoop   G.    Chaudhary,    learned   Senior<\/p>\n
Advocate, appearing for the Respondent No.6, while<\/p>\n
supporting    Mr.    Tankha’s   submissions,   reiterated<\/p>\n
that the Deed of Family Settlement had not been
\n                                                                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
acted upon as would be evident from the Deed of<\/p>\n
Settlement itself.                 It would be clear therefrom<\/p>\n
that one of the co-sharers, Sau. Pratibha, who was<\/p>\n
shown       as    the     eighth    executant        of    the     Deed       of<\/p>\n
Settlement dated 8th February, 1967, had, in fact,<\/p>\n
not signed the said document.                        She was not also<\/p>\n
made     a       party    in     the   First     Appeal,         although,<\/p>\n
admittedly she was one of the daughters of Bapu<\/p>\n
Saheb Kante through his first wife.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. On the other hand, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned<\/p>\n
Senior       Advocate,         appearing       for     the      Respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.1, 2, 8, 9 and 10, reiterated that the family<\/p>\n
settlement         of    8th   February,   1967,          had    been    duly<\/p>\n
acted upon, as would be evident from the sale deeds<\/p>\n
executed          by     Narendra      Kante,    which          have     been<\/p>\n
exhibited by Narendra Kante in the suit pertaining<\/p>\n
to    the    suit        property.       Mr.    Ranjit          Kumar    also<\/p>\n
referred to a copy of the agreement made Annexure<\/p>\n
P-1    to    the       Special   Leave    Petition,         which       is    an
\n                                                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
agreement alleged to have been executed by Udai<\/p>\n
Kante, Narendra Kante and Surendra Kante in favour<\/p>\n
of one Ram Bharose Lal Aggarwal regarding Municipal<\/p>\n
House No.15\/642, known as “Kante Saheb Ka Bara”.<\/p>\n
Reference     was   also   made   to    a    suit,    being    Case<\/p>\n
No.32A of 1991, filed by Ram Bharose Lal Aggarwal<\/p>\n
in the Court of Third Additional District Judge,<\/p>\n
Gwalior, for specific performance of the agreement<\/p>\n
dated 8th February, 1967.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15. Similarly, several other documents were also<\/p>\n
referred to by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, which were also<\/p>\n
executed during the hearing of the suit, in order<\/p>\n
to establish the fact that the parties, including<\/p>\n
the present appellant, had acted in terms of the<\/p>\n
said   Deed   of    Settlement    and   had    dealt    with    the<\/p>\n
properties    which    had   fallen     to    their    respective<\/p>\n
shares.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16. Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that as far as the<\/p>\n
second question raised on behalf of the appellant
\n                                                                    15<\/span><\/p>\n
was concerned, it was well-settled that a Deed of<\/p>\n
Family Settlement which was reduced into writing<\/p>\n
was not required to be registered under Section 17<\/p>\n
of the Registration Act, 1908.                    Learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that when an oral settlement had been<\/p>\n
arrived at and acted upon and a subsequent document<\/p>\n
was prepared only for the purpose of recording such<\/p>\n
settlement, the provisions of Section 17 of the<\/p>\n
Registration Act were not attracted, since except<\/p>\n
for   recording     a     settlement,       no   actual       transfer<\/p>\n
takes place by virtue of such document.<\/p>\n
17. In    support    of    his    aforesaid      submission,        Mr.<\/p>\n
Ranjit Kumar firstly relied on the decision of the<\/p>\n
Three    Judge   Bench     in    Kale   vs.      Dy.    Director     of<\/p>\n
Consolidation<\/a>     [(1976        (3)   SCC   119]       in   which   the<\/p>\n
question of registration of a family arrangement<\/p>\n
had fallen for consideration.                    Their Lordships<\/p>\n
held that a family arrangement may be even oral in<\/p>\n
which     case      no      registration           is       necessary.
\n                                                                        16<\/span><\/p>\n
Registration would be necessary only if the terms<\/p>\n
of the family arrangement are reduced into writing<\/p>\n
but there also a distinction should be made between<\/p>\n
a document containing the terms and recitals of a<\/p>\n
family arrangement made under the document and a<\/p>\n
mere      Memorandum            prepared       after       the    family<\/p>\n
arrangement had already been made, either for the<\/p>\n
purpose      of     recording      or   for    information        of    the<\/p>\n
Court for making necessary mutation.                           In such a<\/p>\n
case,    the      Memorandum       itself     does       not   create    or<\/p>\n
extinguish any right in the immovable properties<\/p>\n
and, therefore, neither does it fall within the<\/p>\n
mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act<\/p>\n
nor     is     it     compulsorily         registrable.            Their<\/p>\n
Lordships         went     on    further      to    conclude     that        a<\/p>\n
document, which was no more than a memorandum of<\/p>\n
what     had        been    agreed      to,        did    not    require<\/p>\n
registration.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          17<\/span><\/p>\n
18. While holding as above, Their Lordships also<\/p>\n
indicated that even if a Family Arrangement, which<\/p>\n
required registration was not registered, it would<\/p>\n
operate as a complete estoppel against the parties,<\/p>\n
which had taken advantage thereof.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19. Learned counsel urged that as had been held by<\/p>\n
this Court in Mandali Ranganna vs. T. Ramachandra<\/a><\/p>\n
[(2008) 11 SCC 1], while considering an application<\/p>\n
for grant of injunction, the Court has not only to<\/p>\n
take   into     consideration      the    basic     elements<\/p>\n
regarding existence of a prima face case, balance<\/p>\n
of convenience and irreparable injury, it has also<\/p>\n
to   take   into   consideration    the   conduct    of   the<\/p>\n
parties since grant of injunction is an equitable<\/p>\n
relief.     It was observed that a person who had kept<\/p>\n
quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal<\/p>\n
with the property exclusively, ordinarily would not<\/p>\n
be entitled to an order of injunction.            Mr. Ranjit<\/p>\n
Kumar also referred to the recent decision of this
\n                                                              18<\/span><\/p>\n
Court in Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja                vs. Maruti<\/p>\n
Corpn. & Ors.<\/a> [(2009) 5 Scale 229], in which the<\/p>\n
observation made in Mandali Ranganna’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
was referred to with approval.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20. From    the    submissions     made   on    behalf   of   the<\/p>\n
respective parties and the materials on record, we<\/p>\n
have to see whether the Courts below, including the<\/p>\n
High     Court,     were   justified      in    refusing      the<\/p>\n
appellant’s       prayer   for   grant    of   interim   orders<\/p>\n
pending the hearing of the suit.               Though the Deed<\/p>\n
of Family Settlement has been heavily relied upon<\/p>\n
by the Courts below and the Respondents herein, it<\/p>\n
will have to be considered whether reliance could<\/p>\n
have been placed on the same since the same was not<\/p>\n
registered,       though   it    sought   to    apportion     the<\/p>\n
shares of the respective co-sharers.              It has also<\/p>\n
to be seen whether the document could at all be<\/p>\n
relied    upon    since    all   the   co-sharers    were     not<\/p>\n
signatories thereto.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  19<\/span><\/p>\n
21. As far as the first point is concerned, since<\/p>\n
the same is a question of fact and has, on a prima<\/p>\n
facie basis, been accepted by the Courts below, we<\/p>\n
are not inclined to interfere with the prima facie<\/p>\n
view taken that an oral partition had been effected<\/p>\n
which had been subsequently reduced into writing as<\/p>\n
a   Memorandum        and     not    as   an   actual     Deed     of<\/p>\n
Partition.       Of course, these observations are made<\/p>\n
only for the purpose of disposal of the Special<\/p>\n
Leave Petition and not for disposal of the suit<\/p>\n
itself.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
22. As far as the second question is concerned, a<\/p>\n
Deed    of    Family    Settlement        seeking   to    partition<\/p>\n
joint     family      properties      cannot   be   relied       upon<\/p>\n
unless       signed    by    all    the   co-sharers.       In    the<\/p>\n
instant case, admittedly, the Respondent No.8, Sau.<\/p>\n
Pratibha,      was     not    a    signatory   to   the    Deed    of<\/p>\n
Settlement dated 8th February, 1967, although, she<\/p>\n
is the daughter of Bapu Saheb Kante by his first
\n                                                                20<\/span><\/p>\n
wife.   As was held in the case of M.N. Aryamurthy<\/p>\n
(supra),     under     the    Hindu     Law     if     a   Family<\/p>\n
Arrangement is not accepted unanimously, it fails<\/p>\n
to become a binding precedent on the co-sharers.<\/p>\n
Both Mr. Vivek Tankha and Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary,<\/p>\n
learned Senior Advocates, brought this point to our<\/p>\n
notice to indicate that all the co-sharers had not<\/p>\n
consented to the Deed of Family Settlement which<\/p>\n
could not, therefore, be relied upon. The argument<\/p>\n
would have had        force had it not been for the fact<\/p>\n
that    acting    upon       the    said      Settlement,       the<\/p>\n
appellants had also executed sale deeds in respect<\/p>\n
of the suit property.         Having done so, it would not<\/p>\n
be open to the appellants to now contend that the<\/p>\n
Deed of Family Settlement was invalid.<\/p>\n
23. Now,     coming    to    the   question    of     balance    of<\/p>\n
convenience and inconvenience and irreparable loss<\/p>\n
and injury, it has to be kept in mind that the<\/p>\n
Respondent    No.10    has    already      acquired    rights    in
\n                                                                21<\/span><\/p>\n
respect of the share of the Respondent Nos.8 and 9<\/p>\n
to the suit property and in the event an interim<\/p>\n
order   is   passed        preventing      development    of     the<\/p>\n
portion of the property acquired by it, it would<\/p>\n
suffer irreparable loss and injury since it would<\/p>\n
not be able to utilize the property till the suit<\/p>\n
is disposed of, which could take several years at<\/p>\n
the original stage, and, thereafter, several more<\/p>\n
years   at   the    appellate     stages.          The   appellant<\/p>\n
herein has been sufficiently protected by the order<\/p>\n
of the High Court impugned in this appeal.                     While<\/p>\n
the Respondent No.10 has been permitted to carry<\/p>\n
out construction activities over the disputed land,<\/p>\n
it   has     been        restrained     from       alienating     or<\/p>\n
transferring       the    property    or    from    creating     any<\/p>\n
third party right therein during the pendency of<\/p>\n
the suit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
24. As mentioned hereinabove, there is yet another<\/p>\n
question which goes against the case made out by
\n                                                                    22<\/span><\/p>\n
the appellant, viz., that after the Deed of Family<\/p>\n
Settlement,        even   the     appellant         has      executed<\/p>\n
Conveyances    in    respect     of   portions        of    the     suit<\/p>\n
property,     thereby     supporting         the     case     of     the<\/p>\n
respondent that the Deed of Family Settlement dated<\/p>\n
8th February, 1976, had not only been accepted by<\/p>\n
the parties, but had also been acted upon.<\/p>\n
25. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to<\/p>\n
interfere with the order passed by the High Court,<\/p>\n
but we are also concerned that the suit should not<\/p>\n
be delayed on one pretext or the other, once such<\/p>\n
interim order is granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
26. We,     accordingly,       dispose    of       the     appeal     by<\/p>\n
directing the Trial Court to dispose of the pending<\/p>\n
suit within a year from the date of communication<\/p>\n
of this judgment.         In the meantime, the co-sharers<\/p>\n
to the suit property shall not create any third<\/p>\n
party     rights     or   encumber       or        transfer        their<\/p>\n
respective    shares      in    the   suit     property       in    any
\n                                                                         23<\/span><\/p>\n
manner whatsoever and all transactions undertaken<\/p>\n
in respect thereof shall be subject to the final<\/p>\n
decision in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
27. There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 …………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                          (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                                 …………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                          (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
\nNew Delhi,
\nDated: December 15, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009 Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8290 OF 2009 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)NO.27909 OF 2008) NARENDRA KANTE … Petitioner Vs. ANURADHA KANTE & ORS. … Respondents J U D […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57601","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNarendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-09T03:54:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-09T03:54:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3277,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-09T03:54:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-09T03:54:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-09T03:54:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009"},"wordCount":3277,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009","name":"Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-09T03:54:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kante-vs-anuradha-kante-ors-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57601","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57601"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57601\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}