{"id":80348,"date":"2005-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005"},"modified":"2016-05-04T11:06:37","modified_gmt":"2016-05-04T05:36:37","slug":"p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005","title":{"rendered":"P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, R.V. Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1984 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nP.C. Varghese\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDevaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors. \t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/10\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & R.V. Raveendran\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
\tThe First Respondent herein is the wife of  K.R. Narayana Pillai
\n(Respondent No.5).   Respondent Nos. 2 and 3  are daughters of  the First
\nand the Fifth Respondent herein.  The Fourth Respondent was their minor
\ndaughter.    15 cents out of  the  land in question measuring 19 cents were
\nobtained by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 by reason of a partition under deed
\nNo.1598 of 1973.  As  Respondent No.4 was born subsequent to the
\nexecution of the said deed of partition, she became entitled to a one-fourth
\nshare in 15 cents which comes to 3.75 cents.  The balance 4 cents absolutely
\nbelonged to the First Respondent on the death of one  Narayana Pillai and
\nDevaki Amma.  Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 agreed to sell the said property
\nto the Appellant herein, wherefor an agreement of sale was executed on
\n13.09.1980 in his favour.  In terms of the said agreement, a sum of
\nRs.5,05,000\/- was fixed as total consideration; and a sum of Rs.10,000\/- was
\nreceived by the Respondents by way of advance.  The agreement contained a
\ncondition that the Respondents would obtain requisite permission from the
\nappropriate court for sale of the minor’s share therein.  Such permission was
\nto be obtained within a period of three months which was also the period
\nfixed for performance of the terms of the agreement.  However, an extension
\nthereof had been granted.  The  Appellant made several requests to the
\nRespondents to perform their part of contract.  According to him, the
\nRespondents had deliberately been delaying the disposal of the application
\nfor obtaining the aforementioned permission.  A letter was also sent  to the
\nFifth Respondent requesting him to get the sale deed executed at least with
\nregard to the shares of  Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on receipt of proportionate
\namount of consideration and to execute the sale deed relating to the minor’s
\nshare after such permission was obtained.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Respondents, however, did not perform their part of  contract.
\nThe Appellant deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000\/- in  his name and in the
\nnames of his wife and children in fixed deposit No.28517-57-81 dated
\n03.08.1981 in the Federal Bank Limited.  He also served a registered notice
\nthrough his advocate asking the Respondents to execute the sale deed, in
\nrespect whereto a reply was sent by the Respondents stating that the sale
\ndeed can be executed only after obtaining the permission from the Court.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Appellant filed the suit against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein,
\ninter alia, for a decree of specific performance of contract in respect of the
\nsaid agreement of sale in respect of the entire 19 cents.  He  also made an
\nalternative prayer, as per para 23C praying that if specific performance could
\nnot be granted in regard to entire extent, he may be allowed to take a sale
\ndeed in respect of the share of  Defendants 1 to 3 and may be allowed to
\nrecover possession of that much property from defendants through court.\n<\/p>\n
It is, however, not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit, the
\napplication filed for obtaining permission for sale of minor’s share was
\ndismissed.  The Appellant thereafter filed an application for amendment of
\nplaint praying for substitution of prayer ‘C’.  The application for amendment
\nwas allowed and amended prayer ‘C’ reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t“C-\tIf for any reason this Hon’ble Court finds
\nprayers A & B cannot be allowed as such, the plaintiff
\nmay be allowed to take a sale deed of the share of
\ndefendants 1 to 3 in the plaint schedule property, through
\ncourt, in the name of his wife and children as mentioned
\nabove.  And for that purpose pass a preliminary decree to
\ndivide the aforesaid 15 cents in the schedule property
\nseparating the 3\/4th share of the defendants 1 to 3 from
\nthe 1\/4th share of  the minor 4th defendant by metes and
\nbounds and allowing plaintiff to recover possession of
\nthe four cents belonging to the first defendant and 3\/4th
\nshare of defendants 1 to 3 in the 15 cents on payment by
\nthe plaintiff of the consideration agreed in the agreement
\nfor sale less the proportionate value of his minor’s
\nshare.”\n<\/p>\n
The  Respondents in their written-statement raised a contention that
\nthe Civil Court  having refused to grant permission to sell the minor’s share,
\nperformance on their part became impossible.  It was further contended that
\nthe purpose for agreeing to sell the property was for meeting the marriage
\nexpenses of the Third Respondent but ad Respondent Nos1 and 5 were able
\nto meet the expenses therefor without selling the property, the very purpose
\nthereof became futile.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Trial Judge in view of the rival contentions of the parties
\nframed as many as seven issues.  Issue Nos. 5 and  7 read as under :
\n“(5)\tIs not a plaintiff entitled to specific performance of
\nthe agreement of sale dated 13.09.1980 ?\n<\/p>\n
 (7)\tWhether the Specific Performance of the part  of
\nthe agreement is allowable ?”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe suit filed by the Appellant herein was decreed by the Trial Judge
\nin the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t“In the result, a preliminary decree for partition is
\npassed on the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t(1)\tThe 3\/4th share of the property of the
\ndefendants 1 to 3 shall be partitioned from the 15 cents of
\nproperty which belongs to defendants 1 to 4 as also the 4
\ncents absolutely belongs to the first defendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)\tThe plaintiff is allowed to apply for passing
\na Final Decree for effecting the partition of 3\/4th share in
\nthe 15 cents of property.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3)\tThe plaintiff is also allowed to apply for
\nissue of a Commission to effect partition of > share of
\ndefendants 1 to 3 in 15 cents of property and to ascertain
\nthe value of 1\/4th share of the minor 4th defendant in the
\n15 cents of property.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4)\tThe defendants 1 to 3 are directed to execute
\nthe sale deed for their 3\/4th share in 15 cents plus 4 cents
\nwhen they will be allotted their shares in the final decree
\non receiving the sale consideration minus the value of the
\nshare of the minor 4th defendant which was ascertained in
\nthe Final Decree Proceedings within two months from
\nthe date of passing the Final Decree.\n<\/p>\n
\t(5)\tThe plaintiff is directed to deposit the sale
\nconsideration as per the terms of the contract deducting
\nthe proportionate value of the minor’s share within two
\nmonths from the date of the final decree.\n<\/p>\n
\t(6)\tIn case defendants 1 to 3 failed to execute
\nthe sale deed for the property allotted to them in the final
\ndecree within two months from the date of passing final
\ndecree after paying the proportionate sale consideration.\n<\/p>\n
\t(7)\tThe plaintiff is allowed to get the document
\nexecuted for 19 cents of  property as scheduled in the
\nplaint as stated above through court and plaintiff is also
\nentitled to get delivery of that property from the
\ndefendant in execution of this decree.\n<\/p>\n
\t(8)\tIn the circumstances of the case both parties
\nare directed to suffer their respective costs.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Original Defendant Nos.4 and 5 did not prefer any appeal against
\nthe said judgment and decree.  The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein only
\npreferred an appeal.  A cross-appeal was also filed by the Plaintiff-
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent Nos.1 to
\n3 herein holding that the contract being an integrated one, the conditions
\nmentioned therein as regard obtaining the necessary permission from the
\nCivil Court relating to minor’s share was an essential term for execution of
\nthe contract and since such permission had not been granted, the entire
\ncontract failed.  The Appellant is, thus, before us.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were not  parties to the appeal before the
\nHigh Court, they were not impleaded as parties; subsequently an application
\nfor impleading them was filed.  The said application was allowed.  However,
\nan application has been filed by the said added Respondents contending that
\nthey have unnecessarily been impleaded as parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. John Mathew, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe Appellant, would submit that having regard to the facts and
\ncircumstances of this case, the High Court committed a manifest error in
\nmisreading and misinterpreting  the agreement of sale dated 13.09.1980.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 12 of the Specific Relief Act, the learned counsel would
\ncontend, enables the court to grant a decree in respect of a part of contract in
\na case where party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of
\nit.  He contended that the High Court, therefore, wrongly reversed the
\njudgment and decree of the Trial Court relying on Delsukh M. Pancholi vs.
\nThe Guarantee Life and Employment Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others [AIR
\n1947 PC 182] and T.V. Kochuvareed and Another vs. P. Mariappa Gounder
\nand Others<\/a> [AIR 1954 Travancore-Cochin 10], holding that the condition as
\nregard obtaining permission from the Civil Court was a condition precedent.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Mathew would urge that the findings of the High Court cannot be
\nsustained in view of the fact that out of 19 cents only 3.75 cents came to the
\nshare of the minor and, thus, the provision of Section 12(3) of the Specific
\nRelief Act was clearly attracted.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. V.R. Reddy,  the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3,  would submit that the contract in question is a
\ncontingent one and in view of the fact that  application for obtaining
\npermission to sell the share of the minor was sought for and refused, the
\nentire agreement became unenforceable in law.   In any event, the learned
\ncounsel would contend, the discretionary relief under Section 20 of the
\nSpecific Relief Act should not granted in favour of the Appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. T.L.V. Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe added Respondents, (Respondent Nos.4 and 5), would submit that
\nRespondent Nos. 4 and 5 have unnecessarily been added in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
The property belonged to Respondents Nos.1 to 4.  Respondent No.5
\nbeing the father of Respondent No.4, who was a minor at the relevant time,
\nexecuted the agreement on her behalf.  The said agreement was entered into
\nby the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on their own behalf and by Respondent No.5
\nas the guardian of the minor Respondent No. 4.\n<\/p>\n
In terms of the said agreement, the Respondents agreed :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tto satisfy the purchaser about their title in respect of the property and
\nalso clear any encumbrance certificate, if found on verification;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tascertain the extent of the property by measuring it and if there was
\nany deficiency, agree for deduction of proportionate consideration;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tput up a wall separating the boundary at the entrance,\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tchange the names and enter new names in revenue records;\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tcomply with all formalities which they were required to do under the
\nlaw;\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tobtain  guardian and ward certificate, clearance certificate, permission
\nof Town Planning Authority  etc.;\n<\/p>\n
(vii)\tsecure the amount of consideration payable to the minor in terms of
\nthe guardian and ward certificate which was to be obtained on application
\nfiled by Respondent No.5;\n<\/p>\n
(viii)\treceive the balance  consideration and on the date specified by the
\nAppellant, appear before the Sub-Registrar and register the deed of sale.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was further stipulated that in the event, the Respondents failed to
\nregister the sale deed in terms of the said agreement, the Appellant would be
\nentitled to deposit in the court the balance consideration after adjusting the
\namount of advance; file a suit and obtain a decree for specific performance.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe fail to understand as to how the agreement for sale can be said to
\nbe a contingent contract, as was submitted by Mr. Reddy.  The agreement
\nnowhere states that in the event the permission to sell the minor’s share is
\nnot obtained within the period specified therein, the same shall become
\ninvalid or otherwise unenforceable in law.  The application for grant of
\npermission to sell the minor’s share, as noticed hereinbefore, was rejected
\nonly during the pendency of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt may be true that the agreement was to be performed within a period
\nof three months, but it was extended.  The Appellant herein not only in the
\nsuit but also even prior thereto asked the Respondents herein by a notice
\ndated 23.03.1981 (Ex. P2) to execute a deed of sale in relation to the shares
\nof  Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein i.e. excluding the share of the minor,
\nstating :\n<\/p>\n
“Even now I stick on to this suggestion and am
\nprepared to purchase the remaining portion of the
\nproperty minus the minor’s share and is prepared to
\npurchase the minor’s share also after obtaining the
\npermission from court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is further strange to see that in your letter under
\nreference you have only invited my attention to the
\naforesaid suggestion of mine without specifically,
\nunambiguously stating whether you are prepared the
\nsuggestion and if so on which date the document can be
\nexecuted for the remaining share of the property after
\ndeducting the minor’s share.  So kindly inform  me
\nwhether you accept the aforesaid suggestion and if so, on
\nwhich date we can execute the document.  In that case let
\nthe court take its own time to grant the permission
\ncertificate and after you obtain the said  certificate from
\nthe court, I will purchase the minor’s share also.  Further
\nI request you to extend the period of agreement in
\nwriting.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn reply to the said notice, the Respondent No.5 contended that as the
\nshare of the Fourth Respondent was not demarcated, the Appellant will have
\nto wait till the required documents from the authorities are obtained.
\nThereafter, another legal notice was issued on 31.07.1981 asking the
\nRespondents to execute the sale deed in his favour and his nominee failing
\nwhich a legal proceeding shall be initiated for specific performance of the
\nsaid agreement for sale.  It is not in dispute that the Appellant was all along
\nready and willing to perform his part of contract.\n<\/p>\n
\tSub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for
\nshort “the Act”) was enacted with a view to meet such eventualities when
\nthe whole of the contract cannot be performed, by the vendor.  It reads as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
(3) Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the
\nwhole of his part of it, and the part which must be left
\nunperformed either–\n<\/p>\n
 \t\t\t(a) \tforms a considerable part of the whole, though
\nadmitting of compensation in money; or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(b) \tdoes not admit of compensation in money;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\the is not entitled to obtain a decree for specific
\nperformance; but the court may, at the suit of the
\nother party, direct the party in default to perform
\nspecifically so much of his part of the contract as he
\ncan perform, if the other party\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(i)     in a case falling under clause (a), pays or has paid
\nthe agreed consideration for the whole of  the
\ncontract reduced by the consideration for the part
\nwhich must be left unperformed and a case falling
\nunder clause (b), [pays or had paid] the
\nconsideration for the whole of the contract without
\nany  abatement; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii)   in either case, relinquishes all claims to the
\nperformance of the remaining part of the contract
\nand all right to compensation, either for the
\ndeficiency or for  the loss or damage sustained by
\nhim through the default  of the defendant.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe said provision has been enacted for the benefit of the purchaser
\nand, thus, cannot operate to his detriment.  We may notice that under the old
\nSpecific Relief Act, the Plaintiff  was not only required to relinquish his
\nclaim of specific contract as regard that part of the contract which cannot be
\nperformed but also was required to pay the entire amount of consideration;
\nwhereas in terms of Section 12(3) of the new Specific Relief Act, 1963 he is
\nnow required to pay the amount of consideration proportionately.
\n\tIn Sardar Singh vs Krishna Devi (Smt.) and Another<\/a>  [(1994) 4 SCC
\n18], it was held :\n<\/p>\n
“The house being divisible and the appellant being not
\na consenting party to the contract, equity and justice
\ndemand partial enforcement of the contract, instead of
\nrefusing specific performance in its entirety, which
\nwould meet the ends of justice”\n<\/p>\n
\t In Rachakonda Narayana vs. Ponthala Parvathamma and Another<\/a>
\n[(2001) 8 SCC 173], Khare, J., the  learned Chief Justice as he then was,
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
“Thus, the ingredients which would attract specific
\nperformance of the part of the contract, are: (i) if a party
\nto an agreement is unable to perform a part of the
\ncontract, he is to be treated as defaulting party to that
\nextent, and (ii) the other party to an agreement must, in a
\nsuit for such specific performance, either pay or has paid
\nthe whole of the agreed amount, for that part of the
\ncontract which is capable of being performed by the
\ndefaulting party and also relinquish his claim in respect
\nof the other part of the contract which the defaulting
\nparty is not capable to perform and relinquishes the claim
\nof compensation in respect of loss sustained by him. If
\nsuch ingredients are satisfied, the discretionary relief of
\nspecific performance is ordinarily granted unless there is
\ndelay or laches or any other disability on the part of the
\nother party.”\n<\/p>\n
In Surinder Singh vs. Kapoor Singh (Dead)<\/a> through LRs. and Others
\n[(2005) 5 SCC 1`42], (wherein Dharmadhikari, J. was a member) a  three-
\nJudge Bench of this Court  on a reference made on the purported conflict in
\nKartar Singh vs. Harjinder Singh<\/a> [(1990) 3 SCC 517] and Rachakonda
\nNarayana (supra), opined :\n<\/p>\n
“In this case, the Division Bench of the High Court
\npassed a decree of specific performance of contract
\nrelying on or on the basis of a decision of this Court in
\nKartar Singh.”.\n<\/p>\n
\tStrong reliance, however, has been placed by Mr. Reddy on HPA
\nInternational etc. vs. Bhagwandas Fatehchand Daswani amd Others etc.
\n[(2004) 6 SCC 537].  Therein, Dharmadhikari, J. in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case held :\n<\/p>\n
“70. There was one integrated and indivisible contract by
\nthe vendor to convey full interest in the property i.e. his
\nown life interest and the interest of the reversioners with
\nsanction of the Court. As the Court had not granted the
\nsanction, the contract could not be specifically enforced.
\nThe lesser relief of transfer of life interest was not
\nclaimed within a reasonable time after the vendor had
\nintimated that the contract, as agreed for full interest, was
\nnot possible of performance. We find that neither equity
\nnor law is in favour of the plaintiff vendee.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tTherein, in the agreement not only the interest of the vendor in
\npresenti but also the interest of the remaindermen or reversioners after his
\ndeath was the subject matter of contract.  The agreement was furthermore
\nsubject to the passing of the vendor’s title to the property and of the vendor’s
\nright to sell the entire interest, present and future in the property by the
\npurchaser’s advocate.  We may also notice that in that case one of the terms
\ncontained in the agreement for sale was :\n<\/p>\n
“6. In case sanction of the Court is not accorded as
\naforesaid, this agreement shall forthwith stand cancelled and
\nthe vendor shall forthwith return the advance amount of
\nrupees twenty-five thousand to the purchaser.”\n<\/p>\n
A perusal of the said decision clearly shows that  conduct of the
\nplaintiff therein was such which precluded him from obtaining a decree for
\nspecific performance of contract.  In the aforementioned facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, it was held that recession of contract due to non-
\ngrant of sanction by the court within the stipulated period was not an act of
\nbreach of contract on the part of the vendor.  The said decision has no
\napplication in the facts and circumstances of this case.\n<\/p>\n
In Dalsukh M. Pancholi (supra), two questions were posed by the
\ncourt : (a) was the term “subject to the court’s approval” an essential term of
\nthe agreement?, and  (b) if it was essential, by whose default did it fail?
\nTherein, in the facts of the case, the  Privy Council opined that the approval
\nof the attaching court was insisted on as a necessary condition for effecting
\nthe sale, for without it the title to the property was not at all safe.  Once such
\ncondition was found to be essential one, the contract was held to be a
\ncomposite contract.  However, in that case, the vendor therein was not in a
\nposition to convey his own interest in the property without the court’s
\nsanction and the contract. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
\nDefendant Nos.1 to 3 could transfer their properties having definite share in
\nfavour of the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The decision of Travancore and Cochin High Court in T.V.
\nKochuvareed (supra), has also no application in the fact of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
The submission of Mr. Reddy to the effect that this Court should not
\nexercise its discretionary jurisdiction is stated to be rejected.  No such
\ncontention has been raised before the High Court.  Even otherwise it has not
\nbeen shown, having regard to the conduct of the parties, as to why such a
\ndiscretionary jurisdiction should not be exercised.  An alternative plea of
\nrefund of earnest amount and damage cannot itself be a bar to claim a decree
\nfor specific performance of contract.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Trial Court not only granted a decree for specific performance of
\ncontract but also a preliminary decree for partition.\n<\/p>\n
The submission of Mr. Reddy to the effect that the learned Trial Judge
\ncommitted a serious error in granting a decree for partition along with a
\ndecree for specific performance of contract need not detain us long as in
\nview of Section 22(1)(a) of the Act a decree for partition and separate
\npossession of the property can be granted in addition to a decree for specific
\nperformance of contract.  As in this case, the Appellant herein in view of
\namended prayer ‘C’ relinquished his claim in respect of the property
\nbelonging to the minor – Respondent No. 4, he also prayed for a decree for
\npartition and such a prayer having been allowed, no exception thereto can be
\ntaken.  In any event, the said question has not been raised by the
\nRespondents before the High Court at all.  Section 22 enacts a rule of
\npleading that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the plaintiff may
\nclaim a decree for possession and\/ or partition in a suit for specific
\nperformance.  Even though strictly speaking, the right to possession accrues
\nonly when a suit for specific performance is decreed, indisputably such a
\ndecree for possession and\/ or partition is prayed for in anticipation of the
\ngrant of prayer for specific performance of contract.  [See Babu Lal Vs. M\/s.
\nHazari Lal Kishori Lal and Others (1982) 1 SCC 525]<\/p>\n
The only person who could question the said decree for partition was
\nRespondent No. 4.  As noticed hereinbefore, a decree as against him has
\nattained finality as she did not preferred any appeal thereagainst.\n<\/p>\n
The said decree for partition, therefore, has attained finality.  No
\ndecree for specific performance of contract, however, has been passed as
\nagainst the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.  They are, however, otherwise bound
\nby the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge.   Therefore, they are also
\nproper parties, though not necessary parties.
\nBefore parting with this case, however, we may observe that the
\nmanner in which the decree has been passed by the learned Trial Court is
\nopen to question inasmuch as a relief in terms of Section 22 of the Specific
\nRelief Act being incidental or ancillary to the main relief of specific
\nperformance of contract and, furthermore, being in addition thereto,
\nordinarily, a proceeding for grant of a final decree for partition should be
\ninitiated after the sale deed in terms of the decree for specific performance of
\ncontract is executed and registered and not vice-versa.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons aforementioned,, the impugned judgment cannot be
\nsustained, which is set aside accordingly.  The Appeal is allowed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, R.V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1984 of 2002 PETITIONER: P.C. Varghese RESPONDENT: Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/10\/2005 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & R.V. Raveendran JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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-80348","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005 - 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\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-04T05:36:37+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-04T05:36:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3963,\"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\\\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005\",\"name\":\"P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-04T05:36:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005 - 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\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-04T05:36:37+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005","datePublished":"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-04T05:36:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005"},"wordCount":3963,"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\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005","name":"P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-04T05:36:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-varghese-vs-devaki-amma-balambika-devi-ors-on-7-october-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005"}]},{"@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\/80348","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=80348"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80348\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80348"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80348"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80348"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}