The High Court dismissed the second appeal, rejecting the contention that non-framing of issues caused prejudice. The court found no error in the courts below's findings establishing the respondent as the legitimate son of the defendant.
Second Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.877 OF 2003
Chandrappa Bapu Patil
(since deceased through L.Rs)
Dinkar Chandrappa Patil and Ors.
...Appellants
vs.
Pandu @ Ramu Chandrappa Patil...Respondent
Mr.A.P.Kulkarni h/f Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni for the Appellants
Mr.D.S.Sawant for the Respondent.
CORAM: A.S.OKA, J.
DATED: JULY 20, 2006.
P.C.:
1. Heard Shri Kulkarni for the Appellants and Shri Sawant
for the Respondent.
2. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the
Trial Court did not frame proper issues. He pointed out that
the main contention of the Appellants was that the original
Plaintiff was not related to the original Defendant No.1 in
any manner. He submitted that as the proper issues were not
famed, prejudice has been caused to the Appellants. He
submitted that the only documentary evidence produced by the
original Plaintiff is the birth extract which is not duly
proved. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgments
and Decrees are perverse.
3. I have considered the submissions. The First Appellate
-2-
Court has noted the contention of the Appellants that
prejudice was caused to the Respondent as proper issues were
not framed. However, the first Appellate Court has found
that the parties were fully aware about the controversy
involved in the suit. The parties have led evidence on
relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The
first Appellate Court, in my view, has rightly came to the
conclusion that no prejudice has been caused to the either
parties due to failure to frame the proper issues. Apart
from the birth extract relied upon by the Plaintiff, the
courts below have considered the evidence of witness Dhondi
Subhana Chougale who was 80 years old and evidence of Tanubai
who was 78 years old. After appreciating the evidence, the
courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the mother
of the Plaintiff Sakhubai was the legally wedded wife of the
first Defendant and the Plaintiff is the legitimate son of
the said Defendant. After having perused the findings
recorded by the courts below, I find no error in the said
4. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether failure to frame proper issues in the Trial Court caused prejudice to the Appellants.
Whether the Family Court findings on the relationship between the parties were erroneous.
Chandrappa Bapu Patil (L.Rs.)
Pandu @ Ramu Chandrappa Patil
A.S. OKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court