Page 1

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1104 OF 2016           (Arising out of SLP(C)No.4492 of 2008)

   PARVATHAMMA & ORS.                       ... APPELLANT(S)  

               VS.

   VENKATSIVAMMA & ORS.                        ... RESPONDENT(S)

   J U D G M E N T

ANIL R.  DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the

judgment delivered by the trial court, we find that the

High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings

arrived at by the trial court, especially in view of the

fact that the partition of the property, among the family

members, had taken place on 20th  June, 1990, whereas the

suit for partition had been filed by the

Respondent­daughters in the year 1993.

4. There is no finding to the effect that at the time of

partition, the parties did not agree or there was any

coercion.   In absence of such a factor, especially when

1

Page 2

the partition had  taken place at free will of the father

of present respondents, we do not see any reason for the

High Court to interfere with the order passed by the trial

court.  Very often, for some special reasons, not recorded

in the partition deed, the properties may not be divided

equally.   Partition of family property, being a subject

involving the family, the family members may agree to

unequal partition for some just reasons.

5. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and dismiss

the suit.

6. The appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as

to costs. Judgment delivered by the trial court is

restored.   Pending application, if any, stands disposed

of.

       ..............J.

[ANIL R. DAVE]

.................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]

New Delhi; 9th February, 2016.

2