Dismissed

Shri Shreekant Chiragandh Mahamuni v. Sachdeo Chitragandh Mahamuni and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Jul 2007SA/160/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, on an appeal in a partition suit, dismissed the appeal. The court held that the concurrent findings of two lower courts that the suit property was self-acquired and not joint family property bindingly prevent this court from interfering, regardless of the defendant's signature on a subsequent partition deed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; decree of partition refused to the appellant-plaintiff.

Shri Shreekant Chiragandh Mahamuni Vs Sachdeo Chitragandh Mahamuni… — Partition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

SECOND APPEAL NO. 160 OF 2007

¶3

Shri Shreekant Chiragandh Mahamuni .. Appellant v/s. Sachdeo Chitragandh Mahamuni and another .. Respondents

¶4

Mr.Surel S. Shah for the appellant.

¶5

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 5TH JULY, 2007

¶6

P.C.

¶7

Heard counsel for the appellant. The sole argument canvassed before this court is that the courts below having accepted the fact asserted and deposed to by the appellant that the defendant No.1 was signatory to the document Exhibit 53 and had put his signature thereon and the suit property being part of the properties referred to in the said Partition Deed Exhibit 53, it was inappropriate to refuse the decree of partition. However, this submission clearly overlooks the concurrent finding of fact reached by the courts below on the crucial issue as to whether the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff and Ramchandra utilising the joint family income and nucleus. In so far as that issue is concerned, both the courts below on appreciating the evidence on record, have recorded the finding against the appellant-plaintiff. That finding will bind this court. There is nothing wrong either in the approach or the conclusion reached by the courts below on that aspect. There is evidence on record to uphold the concurrent finding of fact by two courts below on that count. Once it is found that the suit property was self-acquired property of the plaintiff and

¶8

Ramchandra, the question of the said property becoming subject matter of partition on the assumption that it is joint family property, does not arise. It makes no difference if the document Partition Deed, Exhibit 53 including the fact that the signature of the defendant No.1 on the said document has been proved. Thus understood, no case for interference is made out.

¶9

For the aforesaid reasons, it is not necessary to go into the correctness of the other reasons recorded by the courts below to hold against the appellant-plaintiff. Hence dismissed.

¶10

(A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

Shri Shreekant Chiragandh Mahamuni v. Sachdeo Chitragandh Mahamuni and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shreekant Chiragandh Mahamuni v. Sachdeo Chitragandh Mahamuni and Anr.

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

Sarjerao Kacharu Gadhe Vs Baban Kacharu Gadhe and Ors.

Laxman Ramachandra Kshirsagar Vs Shivajirao Ramachandra Kshirsagar

Kavita Vilas Sokate and Anr. Vs Dnyaneshwar Shivling Hadatgune and Ors.

Rajaram Ganpati Kale Deceased Thr Lr Shri Ramdas Rajaram Kale and Ors. Vs Babu Ganpati Kale Dece Thr Lr Punjabai Baburao Kale and Ors.

Shri Shreekant Chiragandh Mahamuni Vs Sachdeo Chitragandh Mahamuni and Anr.

Sanjay Ramchandra Bankar ( Thro. Power of Attorney Holder) Ashok Ramchadnra Bankar Vs Kisan Appa Bailbhinge