New Delhi, October 16
At a time when the government is contemplating a three-year deadline for disposal of cases, the Supreme Court last week adjudicated a property dispute that had its origin eight decades ago - in 1931 to be precise.

Understandably, both the main litigants - the petitioner and the respondent - died while fighting the case in various courts. A bench comprising justices BN Agarwal and HL Dattu delivered a 37-page verdict in the case on October 9, the last working day for Agarwal who retired yesterday.

Though the dispute had come up to the apex court only in 2001, it all began in 1931 when the respondent, Vithu Hira Mahar of Poona, obtained an order from the officials under sections 15 and 18 of the Bombay Hereditary Office Act, 1874. The order recognised him as the adopted son of a woman, Ramabai, who had property but no children to inherit it.

When this came to the notice of the contending claimants to the property, they approached the deputy district collector and obtained an order on June 18, 1941, directing the suit lands be returned to the applicants as the October 22, 1931 order in favour of Vithu was not traceable.

Ultimately, the case came to a civil court in 1953 and the court promptly disposed it of the same year. The affected party then took it to the Poona district court in 1955. The court dismissed the appeal in February 1958, confirming the findings of the trial court.

Aggrieved, Vithu filed an appeal in the high court in 1958. Simultaneously, he also managed to obtain a photocopy of the 1931 order passed by Mamlatdar in his favour and approached the state government.

Subsequently, the SDO of the Baramati division came out with a finding that the 1931 order conclusively proved that Vithu was Ramabai’s adopted son. Since this finding was against the ruling of the trial court, it set off a parallel litigation starting from the trial court all over again.

In the verdict, the apex court ruled the state government had no power to direct the SDO to hold an inquiry to decide the question of inheritance, ignoring the decree passed by a competent civil court, which had been affirmed by the HC.

Of course, the law stands clarified but the dispute has outlived the main litigants. A glaring example of justice delayed is justice denied?