Disposed

Archana Parag Chumble v. Mangesh Shankar Chumble and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Sept 2004CAF/5166/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court appeals bench granted status quo in a partition appeal, directing the respondent not to alienate or create third-party interests in the property pending the suit's final disposal, given the admission of the parties' relationship.

What did the court decide?

Order: Parties to maintain status quo; Respondent No.1 prohibited from alienating or creating third-party interest in the property pending suit and final disposal of the appeal.

1.	Heard	Mr.	Joshi	for	the	resp	ondents.	The	applicant
is	the	daughter-in-law	of	the	res	pondent	no.	1	and she
is	claimin	g share	in	the	h	joint	family pr	operty	after
the	death	of her	husband.		In	one	of the	property	, the
trial	Court	has gr	anted	a	share	to	the ext	ent	of 1/4th.
However,	in	other	properties		share	ha	s not	been	granted.
Learned	co	unsel Mr.		Joshi		who	appears	for	the
respondents		submits	that	th	e	applican	t has		remarried
after	the	death	of th	e	respon	dent	no.1’s son	and	that

Heard

Mr.

Joshi

for

the

resp

ondents.

The

applicant

the

daughter-in-law

the

res

pondent

no.

and
she

claimin

g
share

the

joint

family
pr

operty

after

the

death

of
her

husband.

one

of
the

property

,
the

trial

Court

has
gr

anted

the
ext

ent

of
1/4th.

However,

other

properties

s
not

been

granted.

Learned

unsel
Mr.

Joshi

who

appears

for

the

respondents

submits

that

applican

t
has

remarried

after

the

death

of
th

respon

dent

no.1’s
son

and

that

the properties are separate properties and cannot	be
made available for partition and the trial Court	is
justified in refusing the decree. What we have	noticed
is that whether the properties are joint family	property
or not is a question. In order to establish that	these
properties are separate properties, the defendant	no.1
has entered into the witness box. However,	the
applicant has not entered the witness box. Under	these
circumstances, whether burden has been discharged by	the
respondent no.1 is a questiion and if it is d	ischarged,
whether it was necessary for the plaintiff-applican	t to
enter into the witness box. This cannot be done	unless
the whole matter is heard and evidence is ap	preciated.
These findings are questions of facts. However,	during
the pendency of the appeal, it is necessary to	protect
the property so as to be available in case	the
plaintiff-applicant succeeds. In view of the	admitted
relationship and allotment of share in one of	the
properties, we find that there is a prima facie ca	se in
favour of the applicant that in case she succeeds	in
appeal, she is likely to get a share in the	property.
So in order to preserve the property to be	made
available for execution, we find it necessary	to
maintain status quo and further to prohibit	the
respondent no. 1 from creating any third party	interest

the
properties
are
separate
properties
and
cannot

made
available
for
partition
and
the
trial
Court

justified
in
refusing
the
decree.
What
we
have

noticed

is
that
whether
the
properties
are
joint
family

property

or
not
is
a
question.
In
order
to
establish
that

these

properties
are
separate
properties,
the
defendant

no.1

has
entered
into
the
witness
box.
However,

the

applicant
has
not
entered
the
witness
box.
Under

these

circumstances,
whether
burden
has
been
discharged
by

the

respondent
no.1
is
a
questiion
and
if
it
is
d

ischarged,

whether
it
was
necessary
for
the
plaintiff-applican

t
to

enter
into
the
witness
box.
This
cannot
be
done

unless

the
whole
matter
is
heard
and
evidence
is
ap

preciated.

These
findings
are
questions
of
facts.
However,

during

the
pendency
of
the
appeal,
it
is
necessary
to

protect

the
property
so
as
to
be
available
in
case

the

plaintiff-applicant
succeeds.
In
view
of
the

admitted

relationship
and
allotment
of
share
in
one
of

the

properties,
we
find
that
there
is
a
prima
facie
ca

se
in

favour
of
the
applicant
that
in
case
she
succeeds

appeal,
she
is
likely
to
get
a
share
in
the

property.

So
in
order
to
preserve
the
property
to
be

made

available
for
execution,
we
find
it
necessary

maintain
status
quo
and
further
to
prohibit

the

respondent
no.
1
from
creating
any
third
party

interest

"	Parties	are	hereby	dir	ected to	maint	ain sta	tus	quo	as
on	today.	The	respo	ndent	no.	1 is	hereby		directed	not
to	alienate,	cre	ate	any	third	party	interest		during	the
pendency	of	the	suit	and	final	disposal	of	this		apeal.
However,	the	res	pondent	no.	1	is at	liberty		to	file
proper	appl	ication	in	case	there	is	absolute		ne	cessary
for	the	benefit	of	the	estate of	the	joint		family	or

Parties

are

hereby

dir

ected
to

maint

ain
sta

tus

quo

today.

The

respo

ndent

no.

1
is

hereby

directed

not

alienate,

cre

ate

any

third

party

interest

during

the

pendency

the

suit

and

final

disposal

this

apeal.

However,

the

res

pondent

no.

is
at

liberty

file

proper

appl

ication

case

there

absolute

cessary

for

the

benefit

the

estate
of

the

joint

family

Archana Parag Chumble v. Mangesh Shankar Chumble and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Parag Chumble v. Mangesh Shankar Chumble and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaram Nathu Mhatre. Vs State of Maharashtra through Spl.Land Acq.Officer.

Abdul Gani Khatri Vs R.v.Anjurkar

Sakalnarayan Singh Sitalaprasad Singh and Ors. Vs Kamlesh S/O. Awadhnarayan and Ors.

Dr.Chandra Bhusan Singh Vs Neera Devi (Dancer)

smt.anita babu kamble Vs union of india and Anr.

shirish m. salvekar Vs the mumbai muncipal corporation for gr. bombay and 2 Ors.