/2022 INSC 0851/
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2741 OF 2009
ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 15685 OF 2008
USHA GOPIRATHNAM & ORS.                    ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
P.S.RANGANATHAN (D) THR. LRs. & ORS.       ..RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T 
1. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final   judgement   and
order   dated   22.01.2008   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka
at  Bangalore,   whereby   the   High   Court   dismissed   an   appeal   filed
by   the   Appellants   herein   and   affirmed   the   order   of   the   II
Additional   Civil   Judge   (Senior   Division),   Bangalore   Rural,
Bangalore   dated   16.09.2006 ,   which   had   dismissed   a   civil   suit
filed   by   the   Plaintiff/Appellants   seeking   dissolution   of
Respondent   No.   4/Partnership   Firm,   M/s.   High   Clere   Stud   and
Agricultural Farm. 
2. Parties   before   this   Court:   The   Appellants   before   this   Court
are   the   legal   heirs   of   late   Mr.   Gopirathnam.   Mr.   Gopirathnam
1

was   one   of   the   partners   of   the   Respondent   No.   4   Firm.   The
partnership   firm   originally   comprised   of   Mr.   P.S.   Ranganathan,
Mr.   Lavakumar   and   Mr.   Basanth   Kumar,   apart   from   Mr.
Gopirathnam. Respondent Nos. 1.1 and 1.2 are the legal heirs of
late Mr. P.S. Ranganathan. Respondent Nos. 2.1 and 2.2 are the
legal   heirs   of   Mr.   Lavakumar   and   Respondent   No.   3   is   Mr.
Basanth Kumar himself. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are subsequent
purchasers of certain properties originally owned by the Firm.  
3.1 Facts   leading   to   the   filing   of   this   Appeal:   The   factual
background of the present case has a long history, which can be
traced   back   to   01.01.1966,   when   a   deed   of   partnership   was
entered   into   between   Late   Mr.   Gopirathnam,   Late   Mr.   P.S.
Ranganathan, Late Mr. Lavakumar and Mr. Basanth Kumar. The
partners   were   related   to   each   other   with   Gopirathnam,
Lavakumar   and   Basanth   Kumar   being   brothers   and   P.S.
Ranganathan   being   the   brother­in­law   of   Gopirathnam.   The
partnership firm, which was named as M/s. High Clere Stud and
Agricultural   Farms,   was   a   “partnership   at   will”.   In   so   far   as
profit­sharing   ratio   between   the   partners   was   concerned,   the
partnership   deed   provided   that   the   share   of   P.S.   Ranganathan
2

would   be   50%,   Gopirathnam’s   would   be   20%   and   the   other   two
partners would have a 15% share in the profits. The loss­sharing
ratio was slightly different, with 50% of the losses to be borne by
Ranganathan   and   25%   each   by   Gopirathnam   and   Lavakumar.
Basanth   Kumar   did   not   have   any   share   in   the   loss,   because   at
the  relevant  time, he  was a  minor  and  was admitted only   to  the
benefits of the firm. 
3.2 The   partnership   firm   was   constituted   with   the   object   and
purpose   of   breeding   livestock   and   carrying   on   agricultural
activities. For this purpose, the Firm purchased 39 acres of land
from   one   Mr.   P.S.   Devdas.   Soon   after   the   purchase   of   the   land,
when   the   time   came   to   repay   Mr.   Devdas,   the   Firm   faced
immense   financial   difficulties.   In   fact,   the   Firm   came   under
severe   pressure,   with   Mr.   Devdas   also   having   taken   legal
recourse by filing a criminal case. 
3.3 On   29.03.1973,   which   is   around   the   same   time   when   the
Firm   was   going   through   tough   circumstances,   it   is   alleged   that
Gopirathnam sent a letter to Ranganathan, expressing his desire
to   retire   from   the   Firm.   Ranganathan   is   said   to   have   replied   to
this   letter   on   15.04.1973   and   accepted   the   resignation   of
3

Gopirathnam.   Pursuant   to   this   retirement,   Gopirathnam   is
alleged to have been paid Rs. 20,000 as full and final satisfaction
of his share in the Firm.  
3.4 Parallelly,   in   1975,   the   Firm   happened   to   take   a   loan   from
State Bank of India to meet the maintenance cost of race horses,
sink two bore wells and clear off outstanding dues. Interestingly,
the loan application mentioned Gopirathnam  as a partner  of the
firm.   Later,   around   1982,   when   this   loan   was   not   repaid,   SBI
initiated   legal   proceedings   to   recover   the   loan   and   it   arrayed
Gopirathnam as a Respondent for being a partner of the firm and
also for having executed a guarantee in favour of SBI. 
4. Civil   Suit   by   Appellant:   Be   that   as   it   may,   Gopirathnam
passed away on 27.12.1997. Three years post his demise, in the
year   2000,   the   legal   heirs   of   Gopirathnam,   who   are   also   the
Appellants before this Court, filed a civil suit seeking dissolution
of   the   firm,   rendition   of   accounts   and   partition   of   the   Firm’s
property, on the ground that Ranganathan was acting against the
interests   of   the   Appellants   and   the   Firm.   Notably,   the   suit   was
filed by the Appellants in the capacity of partners of the firm. For
4

this   purpose,   they   pressed   into   service   Clause   17   of   the
partnership deed which provides as follows:
“17) The partnership firm shall not be dissolved
by the death or insolvency of any one or more of
the   partners.   The   heirs   or   representatives   in
interest of such dead partners shall be entitled
to   be   partners   in   the   firm.     The   assessment   of
the share of such partner shall be on the basis
of   the   audited   statement   of   accounts   for   the
year   ending   31 st
  December   previous   to   such
death or insolvency.”
5. Interim Protection pending the suit:  On  25.10.2002 , when the
matter   came   up   for   hearing   before   the   Trial   Court,   the   Court
passed an order restraining the Respondents from alienating the
share   of   the   Appellants.   However,   on   03.11.2004,   during   the
subsistence   and   operation   of   the   interim   order,   the   Firm   was
dissolved   with   Lavakumar   and   Basanth   Kumar   giving   up   their
share   in   favour   of   Ranganathan.   Soon   thereafter,   Ranganathan
also executed sale deeds qua the Firm’s property and entered into
joint   development   agreements   with   Respondent   Nos.   5­7   herein.
It   is   important   to   note   that   while   developing   the   land   in
furtherance of the joint development agreements, 8 acres of land
was kept aside towards the share of the Appellants, which was of
course subject to the outcome of the suit. 
5

6. Decision of the Trial Court : The Civil Suit ultimately came to
be   dismissed   by   the   Trial   Court   on   16.09.2006.   After   perusing
the   evidence   on   record   and   the   arguments   advanced.   While
arriving   at   its   decision,   the   Court   held   that   the   Appellants   have
no   locus   to   claim   the   reliefs   sought   for,   since   Clause   17   of   the
partnership deed is not applicable as Gopirathnam had retired in
1973 and was not a partner till his death in 1997. The Court held
that the Appellants herein had not produced any cogent evidence
to disprove this factum of retirement, and even their argument on
Gopirathnam’s   signature   being   fabricated,   was   left
unsubstantiated.   With   respect   to   the   issue   of   the   Appellants
becoming   partners   after   the   death   of   Gopirathnam,   the   Court
held   that   there   is   no   concept   of   legal   heirs   becoming   partners
automatically   after   the   death   of   a   partner.   It   was   held   that   the
Appellants   were   obligated   to   assert   and   claim   their   rights   as
partners   by   doing   an   overt   act,   which   they   did   not.   Lastly,   the
Court   also   held   that   the   suit   is   barred   by   limitation,   as
Gopirathnam had retired in 1973 and the suit was instituted 27
years later.
6

7. Appeal and interim orders pending appeals:   Aggrieved by the
order of the Trial Court, the Appellants filed an appeal before the
High Court of Karnataka. By its order dated 12.10.2007, the High
Court   also   passed   a   similar   interim   order   to   that   of   the   Trial
Court by directing Respondent Nos. 5­7 herein to reserve 8 acres
of land while carrying out the developmental works. 
8.1 Decision of the High Court:   The appeal came to be decided by
the High Court on 22.01.2008. In order to decide the appeal, the
High Court framed two questions, which are as follows:
a) Whether   Gopirathnam   retired   from   the   partnership
firm because of the letter dated 29.03.1973 and hence he
ceased   to   be   a   partner   of   the   4 th
  Respondent   Firm
following the letter of acceptance dated 15.04.1973?
b) Whether   the   Appellants   became   the   partners   of   the
Firm   automatically   by   virtue   of   Clause   17   of   the
Partnership Deed?
8.2 The   High   Court   answered   the   first   question   in   the
affirmative   by   holding   that   Gopirathnam   had   indeed   retired   in
1973.   The   argument   of   the   Appellants   that   the   letter   dated
29.03.1973 was just an intention to retire and was not the final
letter of retirement was rejected by the Court by observing that if
his letter was not a final expression of retirement, then he should
have replied to the letter dated 15.04.1973 sent by Ranganathan
7

accepting the retirement, which he evidently did not. The second
factor   which   prompted   the   Court   to   come   to   a   conclusion   that
Gopirathnam had retired in 1973 was by the fact that there was
no   evidence   regarding   Gopirathnam   receiving   profits   after   1973,
which   ideally,   he   should   have   if   he   was   a   partner   of   the   Firm.
This made the Court draw such an inference as he never cared to
protest about the non­payment of profits right from 1973 till, he
died   in   1997.   With   respect   to   the   argument   regarding   non­
compliance   with   Section   32   of   the   Partnership   Act,   1932 1
,   the
Court   held  that   Section   24   of  the   Act 2
  prevails  over   Section  32 3
,
thereby   meaning   that   the   notice   of   retirement   sent   only   to   the
managing   partner  is   sufficient   and   there   is  no   legal   necessity   to
send   a   notice   of   retirement   to   each   and   every   partner   of   a   firm.
Further,   the   High   Court   also   held   that   Gopirathnam   signing   a
loan   application   form   and   him   being   made   a   party   to   the   suit
1   hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. 
2   Section   24:   Effect   of   notice   to   acting   partner   —   Notice   to   a   partner   who   habitually
acts in the business of the firm of any matter relating to the affairs of the firm operates, as
notice   to   the   firm,   except   in   the   case   of   a   fraud   on   the   firm   committed   by   or   with   the
consent of that partner.
3   Section 32: Retirement of a partner — 
(1) A partner may retire— 
(a) With the consent of all the other partners, 
(b) in accordance with an express agreement by the partners, or 
(c)   where   the   partnership   is   at   will,   by   giving   notice   in   writing   to   all   the   other
partners of his intention to retire.
(2) ………….
(3) ………….
(4) ………….
8

filed   by   SBI   is   immaterial,   as   the   said   suit   was   decided   without
any   contest.   Before   concluding   its   findings   on   this   issue,   the
Court   observed   that   Gopirathnam   retired   when   the   Firm   was
going   through   tough   times.   Therefore,   now   when   the   Firm   is
doing well, his legal heirs are not entitled to come back and seek
a share in the Firm, especially after a delay of 27 long years.
8.3   With respect to the second issue, the Court answered it in
the negative by holding that the Appellants do not automatically
become   partners   of   the   Firm   by   virtue   of   Clause   17   of   the
partnership   deed.   The   Court   held   that   one   of   the   fundamental
principles of partnership law is that the existence of a contract is
a   sine­quo­non   for   the   relationship   of   partnership.   It   was   held
that the phrase ‘entitled to’, as it appears in Clause 17, does not
confer  an automatic right but the said right is to be asserted by
doing a positive act, which the Appellants did not in this case.  
9. After   taking   note   of   the   basic   facts   we   were   of   the   opinion
that   this   is   a   fit   case   for   amicable   settlement   as   the   contesting
parties   are   all   closely   related   to   each   other.   We   put   forth   our
suggestion to the learned counsel appearing for the parties that it
would be in the larger interest, that they resolve the dispute in an
9

amicable   and   peaceful   manner.   We   must   place   on   record   the
positive response received from the learned counsels, who agreed
with the suggestion of the Court. We also indicated to the learned
counsels   that   as   an   extent   of   eight   acres   of   land   has   all   along
been secured, we may also consider passing an appropriate order
granting   a   portion   of   the   land   to   the   Appellants   for   doing
complete   justice   between   the   parties.   However,   we   were   not
inclined   to   take   a   unilateral   decision.   We,   therefore,   suggested
that we will proceed with the hearing and upon conclusion of the
submissions   we   will   reserve   the   case   for   orders   and   the   parties
may   resort   to   mediation   and   intimate   the   result   thereof   within
four weeks.  
10.1   Submission   of   parties:   Shri   Ranjit   Kumar,  Senior   Advocate
along   with   Shri   Ankur   S.   Kulkarni,   AOR,   appeared   on   behalf   of
the   Appellants.   Their   submissions   can   be   broadly   categorised
into   3   parts.   First,   that   t here   can   be   no   retirement   which   is
contrary to the intention of the parties.  Second,  that a retirement
is non­est in law if it has taken place in disregard to the statutory
framework.   Third,   that the Appellants herein became partners of
the Firm automatically after the death of Gopirathnam.  
10

10.2     In   support   of   their   first   contention,   it   was   submitted   by
Shri   Ranjit   Kumar   that   no   valid   retirement   had   taken   place
because­(i)   Gopirathnam’s   signature   on   the   letter   dated
29.03.1973   through   which   he   is   said   to   have   expressed   his
intention   to   retire   is   different   from   his   signature   on   other
admitted   documents;   (ii)   the   loan   applications   submitted   before
SBI   in   1975   and   the   suit   instituted   by   SBI   in   1982,   show
Gopirathnam   as   a   partner   of   the   Firm;   (iii)   Gopirathnam   had
given   a   personal   guarantee   to   the   loan   and   had   also   signed   a
form for  opening a bank account in the name of the Firm, both,
in   the   capacity   of   a   partner   after   the   alleged   date   of   retirement;
(iv)   the   records   maintained   by   the   Stud   Book   Authority,   Pune,
indicated   that   Gopirathnam   was   a   partner   of   the   Firm   till   his
death;  (v)   Clause  16   of   the   partnership   deed   allows  a  partner   to
retire by giving a one­month notice. However, there is no evidence
that   Gopirathnam   gave   such   a   time­bound   notice;   and   (vi)   by   a
communication dated 09.10.2002, Ranganathan had called upon
the   Appellants   to   meet   the   tax   recovery   officer   to   resolve   the
property   issues   of   the   Firm.   According   to   the   Appellants,   this
clearly   shows   that   they   were   treated   as   partners   and   such
conduct of the Respondents should act as estoppel.
11

10.3     In   so   far   as   the   second   submission   goes,   Shri   Ranjit
Kumar contended that – (i) there is non­compliance with Section
32 of  the  Act as Gopirathnam   did  not  give a  notice  in  writing  to
the   other   two   partners   indicting   his   intention   to   retire   from   the
Firm   and   simultaneously,   there   is   no   proof   that   the   other
partners   agreed   to   his   alleged   retirement;   (ii)   there   is   non­
compliance with Sections 63 4
 and 72 5
 of the Act as the change in
the constitution of the Firm, post the retirement of Gopirathnam,
was not informed to the Registrar and, no public notice regarding
the retirement was given. 
10.4   The   last   leg   of   Shri   Ranjit   Kumar’s   submission   dealt   with
the Appellants becoming partners of the Firm automatically after
4   Section 63: Recording of changes in and dissolution of a firm. 
(1)   When   a   change   occurs   in   the   constitution   of   a   registered   firm   any   incoming,
continuing or outgoing partners, and when a registered firm is dissolved any person who
was   a   partner   immediately   before   the   dissolution   or   the   agent   of   any   such   partner   or
person specially authorised in this behalf may give notice to the Registrar of such change
or   dissolution   specifying   the   date   thereof;   and   the   Registrar   shall   make   a   record   of   the
notice   in   the   entry   relating   to   the   firm   in   the   Register   of   Firms,   and   shall   file   the   notice
along with the statement relating to the firm filed under section 59.
(2)  Recording of withdrawal of a minor –  …..
5   Section 72: Mode of giving public notice —  A public notice under this Act is given — 
(a) Where it relates to the retirement or expulsion of a partner from a registered firm,
or to the dissolution of a registered firm, or to the election to become or not to become a
partner in a registered firm by a person attaining majority who was admitted as a minor to
the   benefits   of   partnership,   by   notice   to   the   Registrar   of   firms   under   section   63,   and   by
publication in the Official Gazette and in at least one vernacular newspaper circulating in
the district where the firm to which it relates has its place or principal place of business,
and 
(b)   in   any   other   case,   by   publication   in   the   Official   Gazette   and   in   at   least   one
vernacular newspaper circulating in the district where the firm to which it relates has its
place or principal place of business.
12

the death of Gopirathnam. To buttress his submission, he relied
upon   a   judgement   of   this   Court   in   Khushal   Khemgar   Shah   and
Ors. v. Mrs. Khorshed Banu Dadiba Boatwalla and Anr. 6
.  
11.1   The   main   thrust   of   Shri   Gurukrishna   Kumar,   Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   Respondent   Nos.   5   to   7   is   that
the   Appellants   do   not   automatically   become   partners   after   the
death of Gopirathnam. He contended that such is the scheme of
the Act too. In support of his submissions, he relied on Sections
4 and 5 of the Act to contend that a partnership is creature of a
contract and not of status, with the only exception being Section
30(5) 7
 of the Act. Further, he also placed reliance on Section 31 of
the   Act   to   contend   that   any   new   partner   can   be   inducted   only
with the consent of all the then existing partners. He stated that
such   a  consent   is   absent  in   the   facts  of   this  case.  In   support   of
these   submissions,   he   relied   on   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in
6   (1970) 1 SCC 415
7   Section 30: Minors admitted to the benefits of partnership – 
(1) to (4) ……………..
(5)   At   any   time   within   six   months   of   his   attaining   majority,   or   of   his   obtaining
knowledge that he had been admitted to the benefits of partnership, whichever date is later,
such person may give public notice that he has elected to become or that he has elected not
to become a partner in the firm, and such notice shall determine his position as regards the
firm: 
Provided that  ­ if he fails to give such notice, he shall become a partner in the firm
on the expiry of the said six months.
(6) ……………..
13

Commissioner of  Income  Tax  v. Seth Govindram  Sugar Mills 8
,   and
S.P. Misra & Ors. v. Mohd. Laiquddin Khan & Anr. 9
.
11.2   Shri   Gurukrishna   Kumar,   further   countered   the
submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar by contending that – (i)
no   dispute   qua   the   signature   of   Gopirathnam   should   be   raised
before this Court, as there are concurrent findings by the courts
below   on   the   same   point;   (ii)   the   communication   dated
09.10.2002   was   issued   by   Ranganathan   to   the   Appellants   when
they were arrayed as LRs of Gopirathnam in a decree for recovery
in   favor   of   a   Bank.   Immediately   thereafter,   Ranganathan   even
filed   an   application   before   the   DRT   expressly   stating   that
Gopirathnam   had   retired   and   that   his   LRs   have   nothing   to   do
with   the   Firm;   (iii)   even   if   certain   documents   bear   the   name   of
Gopirathnam, it is immaterial  as they will not create any rights in
favour  of the  Appellants,  as the  doctrine  of  holding  out  which is
applicable in cases like these, is meant only for the protection of
third parties and it does not affect the inter­se relationship of the
parties; and (iv ) Gopirathnam never took any action for rendition
of accounts for twenty­five long years. 
8    (1965) 3 SCR 488
9    (2019) 10 SCC 329
14

11.3   Responding  to  the  contentions  of Shri Ranjit  Kumar   made
on certain legal aspects concerning Sections 24, 32, 63 and 72 of
the   Act, Shri  Gurukrishna   Kumar   contended  that  –  (i)  a  reading
of Sections 32(i)(c) with Section 24 points that notice to the acting
partner   who   habitually   acts   in   business   of   the   firm   operates   as
notice to the firm. In light of this, it was submitted that a notice
given to Ranganathan would operate as a notice on the Firm; and
(ii) Sections 63 and 72 are only intended to protect third parties.
Not  following  the  mandate of  these provisions  will not  inure any
rights to the Appellants herein.     
12. Shri Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, AOR, who appeared on behalf
of Respondents Nos. 1­4 put forth the contention that – (i) postal
acknowledgement   to   Ranganathan’s   letter   dated   15.04.1973
bears the signature of Gopirathnam. In that view of the matter, it
is   clear   that   it   was   the   intention   of   Gopirathnam   to   retire   from
the   Firm;   (ii)   no   reliance   should   be   placed   on   the   records   of   the
Stud Book Authority, as Gopirathnam was shown as a  partner in
1998   even   though   he   died   in   1997   and   that   the   name   of
Lavakumar was never shown although he was a partner; and (iii)
Gopirathnam   retired   when   the   firm   was   going   through   tough
times.   It   was   Ranganathan   who   rescued   the   sinking   ship   and
15

gave   it   a   new   lease   of   life.   It   would   be   unfair   to   allow   the
Appellants to come back and seek a share in the Firm, especially
at a time when the Firm is thriving.
13. Having   heard   the   parties   in   detail   we   reserved   the   case   for
orders   on   03.08.2022.     After   four   weeks,   on   01.09.2022   the
learned   counsels   informed   this   Court   that   the   parties   could   not
arrive at any settlement.
14.   Conclusion:  We have given our anxious consideration to the
dispute   in   hand.     Our   impression   that   the   parties   must   settle
their   disputes   amicably   got   strengthened   after   we   heard   the
parties in detail. Adversarial litigation focuses on the enquiry into
the   truth   or   otherwise   of   every   disputed   fact,   which   most   of   the
time is technical in nature. By the end of it, when a Court takes a
decision, there is no scope for reconciliation or sharing, which is
essential   for   enduring   happiness   in  a   family.  We   are   of  the   view
that   a   decision   based   on   adjustment   of   equities   between   the
parties   will   be   far   more   beneficial   than   rendering   a   decision
based on inferences drawn on contested facts and pure legalities.
15.   It is apparent from the record that from the very inception
of the legal proceedings, the interests of the parties were secured
16

with   the   Trial   Court   passing   an   order   directing   the
Defendant/Respondent   to   set   aside   an   extent   of   eight   acres   of
land.     This   was   an   interim   order   subject   to   the   outcome   of   the
proceedings.     Though   the   suit   was   dismissed,   the   interim   order
continued   during   the   subsistence   of   the   appeal   before   the   High
Court.     Even   this   Court   by   its   order   dated   13.04.2009   had
directed the Respondents to ensure that the said eight acres are
kept   vacant.     In   fact,   even   Respondents   Nos.   5   to   7   have   kept
aside   the   eight   acres   of   land   outside   the   development   that   they
have   undertaken.   This   submission   was   recorded   in   the   order
dated   28.01.2013.   By   virtue   of   these   two   orders,   eight   acres   of
land is vacant and free from any encumbrance.
16. Orders passed by the Trial Court, High Court as well as this
Court   to   keep   aside   eight   acres   of   land   was   only   to   secure   the
probable   share   of   the   Appellants,   in   the   event   they   succeeded.
Though,   the   Appellants   have   lost   in   the   suit   as   well   as   in   the
appeal, a direction can be given for granting a portion of the said
land to the Appellants so that their  claim  to some extent stands
satisfied. We are inclined to take this step because the parties are
closely   related   to   each   other.     Our   order   is   confined   only   to   a
small   extent   and   this   will   not   deprive   the   Respondents   of   the
17

fruits of the litigation in which they have succeeded concurrently.
The Appellants have also been contesting the case for more than
two decades. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the
opinion that such an order could enure to the benefit of not only
the   Appellants,   but   also   that   of   the   Respondents   herein,   for
building and reviving the relationship between the close members
of the family.  
17. In   view   of   the   above,   while   upholding   the   impugned
judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka, we direct that
the   Appellants   will   be   entitled   to   three   acres,   out   of   the   eight
acres   of   land   set   aside   under   the   orders   passed   by   the   Trial
Court,   the   High   Court   and   also   by   this   Court.   It   has   come   on
record   that   the   Firm   had   leased   an   extent   of   one   acre   to   M/s
Karnataka   Dyeing   and   Processing   Company,   a   registered
partnership   firm   in   which   the   first   Appellant   is   one   of   the
partners and this partnership had also made certain investments
in   the   leased   portion   of   the   property.   We   direct   that   the   three
acres to be allotted to the Appellant should include this one acre
of   land.   The   remaining   two   acres   shall   be   allotted   by   the
Respondents   to   the   Appellants   from   the   eight   acres,   which   may
ideally   be   abutting   the   said   one   acre   so   that   the   Appellants   can
18

enjoy a contiguous piece of three acres of land. We will, however,
leave it to the Respondents to decide upon the location of the two
acres   as   per   their   choice.   These   directions   shall   be   complied
within a period of three months from today.
18. For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeal No. 2741 of 2009
against   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   dated
22.01.2008  is   disposed  of  with   the   direction   that   the   Appellants
be   entitled   to   an   extent   of   three   acres   out   of   the   eight   acres   of
land   set   aside   as   per   the   orders   of   this   Court   dated   13.04.2009
and 28.01.2013. The specific area to be allotted to the Appellants
shall   be   in   accordance   with   the   directions   given   in   the   above
paragraph.   These   directions   shall   be   complied   by   the
Respondents within a period of three months from today.
19. The parties shall bear their own costs.
……………………………….J.
                                                            [B.R. GAVAI]
……………………………….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 23, 2022
19