The High Court in second appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant could not claim a right by birth after admitting the suit land was self-acquired. No substantial question of law arose.
No cross-examination admission establishes self-acquired nature; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders
and Registrar’s orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Surel S. Shah, advocate for
the Appellant.
Shri Niranjan P. Shimpi, advocate
for the Respondents.
CORAM: A.S. OKA, J.
DATE : 17th August, 2004.
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
2. The Appellant is an
Obstructionist. His case as pleaded
appears to be that the suit land was
a joint family property in the hands
of his father Dadarao, one Savalaram
and Tatya. The Trial Court as well
as the Appellate Court has relied
upon the admission given by the
Appellant in his cross-examination
that the suit land was a self
acquired property of Savalaram,
Tatya and Dadarao. On the basis of
the said admission, the Courts below
came to the conclusion that the said
admission falsifies the contention
raised by the Appellant.
3. Shri Shah, learned Counsel
appearing for Appellant relied upon
the admission given by the decree
holder to the effect that it was a
joint family property of three
brothers.
4. If the Appellant/-
Obstructionist approaches the court
with a specific case that as the
suit land was a joint family
property in the hands of his father
and two others, he is entitled to
share in the property of birth and
if he clearly admits that it was
self acquired property of his father
and two others, he cannot rely upon
the vague statement made by the
decree holder in the
cross-examination. In view of the
admission given by the Appellant, it
is very clear that he cannot claim
to have acquired any right in the
suit land on his birth. In view of
this position, no substantial
question of law arises. No orders
as to costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
‘
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant can claim a right of birth in suit land after admitting it was self-acquired property of his father and brothers.
Appellant
Respondents
A.S. OKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court