Moses Wilson v. Kasturiba

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A. K. Mathur
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-09-20
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals disposed of; the entire property at issue is to be divided in equal halves between the appellants and respondents. The District Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil (or the ADJ nominated by him) is to supervise the partition, issue notices to both parties, and dispose of the matter preferably within six months. Records to be transmitted to the District Judge.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Moses Wilson and Ors.

Respondents

Kasturiba and Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Dr. A. Francis Julian
• Sunit Kumar
• Amit Kumar Mishra

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Ramamoorthy
• V. Prabhakar
• Ramjee Prasad
• Revathy Raghavan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court Civil Appeal arises from a suit filed in 1947 seeking a sum of Rs. 7,000, with an order for attachment before judgment of the defendant’s dry fish. A third party claimed ownership of the dry fish and sought release of the attachment. The matter is unusually complex, spanning over six decades, and the Court notes the difficulty in finalizing such long-running litigation. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the Court disposes of all four appeals by a common order, directing that the entire property which is the subject matter of the dispute be divided in equal shares between the two sides. The District Judge at Kanyakumari, Nagercoil, or an Additional District Judge nominated by him, is tasked with issuing notices to both parties and dividing the properties into two equal parts. Any grievance may be taken to this Court for clarification. The Court also uses this occasion to reiterate its concern about the delay in disposal of cases and to urge concerned authorities to address the issue urgently, citing distressing incidents reflecting public faith erosion in the judiciary. The judgment cites Rajindra Singh (D) through LRs. v. Prem Mai for reinforcing urgency of timely judicial resolution. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the directions above, with records to be transmitted to the District Judge for action.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The brief record provided does not include explicit argument text. The matter originates from a suit filed in 1947 involving attachment before judgment of the defendant’s dry fish, with a third party claiming ownership. Given the case’s sixty-year history, the appellants advocate expedient resolution. With parties’ counsel’s consent, the Court directs that the entire property be divided equally between the parties and entrusted to the District Judge (Kanyakumari, Nagercoil or his nominated ADJ) to supervise such partition, issuing notices and completing the exercise within six months. The objective is to conclude protracted litigation and restore certainty to ownership and rights therein.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents concur with an equitable disposition and approve the proposed division of the property into two equal shares, to be overseen by the District Judge. They acknowledge the need for prompt disposal and consent to the proposed course, including the possibility of approaching this Court for clarification if any grievances remain.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajindra Singh (D) through LRs. and Ors. v. Prem Mai and Ors.	[2007] 9 SCR 300	Positive	Court relied on and reiterated this decision to emphasize timely disposal of cases and the need for responsible judicial action.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ~ # MOSES WILSON AND ORS. _V._ # KASTURIBA AND ORS. ## SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 **B** **[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]** ## _Administration of Justice:_ _Disposal of old matters-Suit for recovery of money filed in_ c _1947-0rder for attachment before judgment challenged-Case involving complicated issues stretching over 60 years-Held: With consent of parties the entire property which is the subject matter nf litigation is directed to be divided by the District Judge concerned in_ D _[equal shares between the two parties. ]_ ## _Administration of Justice:_ _Curing the delay in disposal of cases in courts-Need for emphasized-Authorities concerned suggested to do the needful in the_ E _[matter urgently. ]_ _Rajindra Singh (D) through LRs. and Ors._ v. _Prem Mai and Ors.,_ **[2007] 9 SCR 300, relied on and reiterated.** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1062F[1065of2007. ] -1 ""' From the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.1998 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. Nos. 3679 to 3682of1987. Dr. A. Francis Julian, Swnit Kumar and Amit Kumar Mishra (for G Arputham, Aruna & Co.) for the Appellants. K. Ramamoorthy, V. Prabhakar, Ramjee Prasad and Revathy Raghavan for the Respondents. _'t-_ The following Order of the Court was delivered : 146 MOSES WILSON v. KASTURIBA 147 A We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We are disposing of all the four appeals by a common order. These appeals arise out of a suit filed in 194 7 and subsequent Proceedings. The suit was for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- and there was an order for attachment before judgment of the dry fish of the defendant. A B third party claimed ownership of the dry fish and he applied for release. of the attachment order. It is not necessary to give further details of the case because the facts involved are very complicated stretching over 60 years. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties we cut short the matter and direct that the entire property which is the subject c matter of this litigation may be divided in equal shares between the two parties. Half share should be given to the appellants and the other half should be given to the respondents. To decide which part should go to the appellants and which part should go to the respondents, as many properties are involved, it is just D and proper that this exercise may be done by the District Judge, ,.. Kanyakumari at Nagercoil himself or by the Additional District Judge nominated by the District Judge. The District Judge may issue notices to both parties and divide the properties in two equal shares. If any person has any grievance against the order passed by the District Judge (or E A.DJ., as the case may be), it will be open for either of the parties to approach this Court for further clarification. The District Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil (or A.DJ. nominated by him) is directed to dispose of the matter preferably within a period of six months. F Let all the records which are available here be transmitted to the District Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil. The appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms. Before parting with this case, we again express our deep concern G at the delay in disposing of cases in our Courts. Recently in Civil Appeal No. 1307 of2001 titled _Rajindra Singh (Dead) thr. Lrs. & Ors._ v. _Prem Mai & Ors._ decided on 23rd August, 2007 we had expressed our deep anguish about this situation, and had observed that because of delay in disposal of cases people in this country are fast losing faith in the judiciary. H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. 148 - A We saw in the media news oflynching of suspected thieves in Bihar's V aishali District, the gunning down of an undertrial prisoner outside Patna City Civil Court, and other incidents where people have taken the law into their own hands. This is obviously because many people have started thinking that justice will not be done in the Courts due to the delays in - B Court proceedings. This is indeed an alarming state of affairs, and we once again request the concerned authorities to do the needful in the matter urgently before the situation goes totally out of control. RP. Appeals disposed of.