Case Brief: Krishna Pillai Rajasekharan Nair (D) By Lrs vs Padmanabha Pillai (D) By Lrs. & Ors

NAME OF THE CASE	Krishna Pillai Rajasekharan Nair (D) By Lrs vs Padmanabha Pillai (D) By Lrs. & Ors
CITATION	(2004) 12 SCC 754
DATE OF JUDGMENT	December 15, 2003
APPELLANT	Krishna Pillai Rajasekharan Nair
RESPONDENT	Padmanabha Pillai
BENCH/JUDGE	R.C. Lahoti J. , Ashok Bhan J.
STATUTES INVOLVED	Transfer of Property Act, 1882Limitation Act, 1908(as was used at that time)
IMPORTANT ARTICLES/SECTIONS	Section 92 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882Article 120 of Limitation Act, 1908Article 148 of Limitation Act, 1908

Facts of the Case:

In 1908, there was mortgage deed which was executed by a joint family, which consisted of 18 members and that included the predecessors of both the parties. It was then mortgaged to the original mortgagee, named Padmanabha Pillai. 

In the year 1953, one of the mortgagers, who is one of the defendants in this case, named Chellappan Pillai, redeemed the said mortgage. After the property was redeemed, he took the entire property which even included the shares of the co-mortgagers. Therefore, to protect the rights a partition suit was filed. 

In the year 1971, Krishna Pillai, who is the appellant in this case, filed the partition suit claiming that he had interest over nine twelfth portion of the property. So, being one of the owners of the property he claimed partition of the property. The partition suit was filed before the Trial Court. 

The trial court held that the suit initiated was not a redemption suit, instead it was a partition suit. The appellant got its own right to claim the rightful share over his portion of the property. On that basis, the appellant would pay the amount to the defendant in proportion to the share of land received by him. 

This decision was challenged by the defendant by filing a suit of appeal before the first appellate court. However, the Court reserved the decision of the trial court and again ruled in favor of the appellant. This decision was again challenged by the defendant and the case moved to the High Court. A suit of appeal was filed before the court. 

The Kerala High Court held that the plaintiff or appellant's suit was not a partition suit, instead was the nature of redemption suit. It was barred under Article148 of the law of limitation as it crossed the time period of 60 years. Therefore, the plaintiff would no more be able to seek partition by filing a partition suit before the court. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant side moved to the Supreme Court by filing a suit of appeal. 

Here, the apex court looked into the facts of the case and conclusively decided the matter. The apex court held that the decision of the High Court was not valid. It overruled the High Court's decision and held that the trial court as well as the first appellate court was correct in determining the nature of the suit. The suit was a partition suit instead of it being a redemption suit. Since the plaintiff was not a mortgagee, therefore no rights were vested upon him to redeem the mortgage once again. In this case, the suit would not be barred by the law pf limitation as limitation law doesn’t apply for partition suit as held under  Article 120 of the said act. The appellant would reimburse the amount to the defendant as was even agreed by the appellant and thereby would get his share of the property. 

So, on these basis, the apex court allowed the appeal and upheld the rights to claim partition by the co-owner of the property. 

Provisions involved: 

Various provisions were involved in the case to decide on the merits of the case. These provisions aided in increasing the weight if the argument and to give validity to it. The following underlying provisions in this case are:

1. Section 92 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882
2. Article 120 of Limitation Act, 1908
3. Article 148 of Limitation Act, 1908
4. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Issues involved:

The major issues that are present in the case help in streamlining what are the major points to be discussed by the court. The major issues that were stressed by the court were:

1. Whether the suit initiated by the plaintiff before the court was a partition suit or a suit for redemption. 
2. Whether the suit would be barred by article 148 of Limitation law
3. Whether the mortgager who redeemed the entire property under section 92 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would be able to gain the rights of mortgagee
4. Whether the partition suit of the plaintiff being a co-owner be maintainable by law
5. Whether it would be valid on the part of the co-mortgager to prohibit partition of the property

Arguments of the Appellant's side:

The learned counsel, representing the case on behalf of the appellant gave arguments before the court to prove the maintainability of the suit. The major point of contention was whether the suit was a partition suit or a suit of redemption. The appellant held that the suit filed before the court was a partition suit claiming his portion of the property. He was supposed to get  9/12^th of the property. Since, it was a partition suit, so the limitation act would not apply in this case, as held under article 148 of the said act. 

The appellant had held that he was ready to rightfully reimburse the amount for his share of the property and showed his willingness to do so. He acquired bona fide intention as was required under section 92 of Transfer of Property act, 1882. When the mortgage was redeemed in the year of 1953, then it did not make the defendant the sole owner of the property. Therefore the possession was not exclusive on the part of the defendant. 

Section 92 only provides the right to subrogation only. So, the defendant would get claim reimbursement of the amount but could no way restrict one owner to claim for partition of the property. 

Based on the above arguments, the petitioner put forward his claim, stating the right of partition could be applied and he was ready to reimburse with the proportional amount to the defendant. 

Arguments of the respondent’s side:

The learned counsel who was defending the case on behalf of the respondent had rejected the claims of the appellant side. The counsel held that the suit was a redemption suit and not a partition suit. Since, he was claiming possession of the mortgaged property, therefore it was a claim for redemption of the property. In that case, it would be barred by the law of limitation under section 148. Since it had already passed 60 years, therefore the no more claim for redemption of the property. 

It was argued that the appellant was intentionally filing a suit for redemption and claiming it as a partition suit. The plaintiff possessed no such right of redemption or partition of the property. 

Under section 92 of the Transfer of property act, the defendant or the respondent had became the mortgagee and therefore he could continue to keep possession of the property unless got reimbursed properly. Also, there was no absolute reason for such delay to file the suit showed his negligency over his rights and hence should get dismissed by the court. Further, the plaintiff had lacked locus standi to file a suit over that property. Therefore the counsel held that the trial court and the first appellate court was correct in interpreting the facts of the case and therefore rightfully decided on the merits of the case. 

Judgment:

The supreme court held the facts of the cases and ruled in favour of the appellant. The suit was a partition suit and not a redemption suit. The right to redemption would not apply on the appellant. Hence, being a partition suit, the suit instituted would not be barred by the law of limitation. Instead of Article 148, article 120 of the said act would apply in the given case. 

The defendant could only claim for reimbursement, but would not be able to claim ownership of the entire property, especially when the interest of other co owners are even involved. Under Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, only he would bear the right of subrogation. The defendant did not have any adverse possession over the property. 

Therefore, it uphold the decision if the trial court and overruled the decision of the high court in this case, ruling in favour of the appellant. The court held that the appellant does have the right to claim partition and seek possession after reimbursing the defendant with the proportion amount of the property. 

Conclusion

This case had set a remarkable precedence dealing with partition related dispute. The rights of redemption, partition, ownership, reimbursement were all dealt in this case. The case had helped in deciding the other cases as, well.