Dismissed

Shri Prakash Sadba Dalvi v. Smt. Kusumbai Hanmantbhosale

Bombay HC16 Jul 2007SA/205/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the appellant challenged a order regarding suit property, contending he was the absolute owner of his self-acquired property and that the sale deed was without consideration. The court rejected both arguments based on prior findings and evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in it and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Shri Prakash Sadba Dalvi Vs Smt. Kusumbai Hanmantbhosale — Partition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 SECOND APPEAL NO.205 OF 2007

¶5

 Prakash Sadba Dalvi. ..Appellant.

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

 Sou Kusumbai Hanmant Bhosale. ..Defendant.

¶8

 Mr.A.K.Suryawanshi for appellant.

¶9

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J

¶10

 DATE : JULY 16, 2007.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

 1. Heard counsel for the appellant.

¶13

 2. Two contentions have been raised at the

¶14

 hearing of this appeal. Firstly that the appellant
 was the absolute owner of the suit property. It was
 his self-aquired property as he had contributed for
 the purchase of the property consequent to the grant
 which was incidentally in the name of his brother.
 Secondly, it is contended that the sale deed in
 favour of the defendant No.1 is invalid as it was
 without consideration. Both these contentions
 essentially are issues of fact.

¶15

 3. In so far as first contention is concerned,
 in my view, the same is contrary to the stand taken

¶16

¶17

 by the appellant before the lower Court. Obviously,

¶18

 no plea was taken on behalf of the appellant that the
 suit property was his self-acquired property and not
 joint family property. If such plea was to be taken,
 obviously the trial Court would have framed the issue
 in that behalf and decided the matter on its own
 merits in accordance with the law. Be that as it
 may, from the discussion in paragraph-12 of the
 Judgment, it is obvious that the suit property was in
 the name of brother of the appellant and not in
 favour of the appellant as such. Assuming for the
 sake of the argument that the appellant had

¶19

 contributed for the purchase of the property, as the
 grant was in favour of the brother of the appellant,
 by no standard, it is possible to even assume, much
 less, infer that the appellant is the absolute owner
 of the suit property/Gut No.48 admeasuring 48 acres.
 The fact that the appellant was not the owner of the
 suit property is reinforced from one of the condition
 incorporated in Exh. 40, which provides that the
 said land should be sold only to the appellant. If
 the appellant is the owner of the suit property,
 there was no reason to impose such condition. There
 can be no condition that the owner be given
 preference to purchase the property if it is required
 to be sold. Accordingly, I find no merits in the

¶20

¶21

 first point canvassed before this Court.

¶22

 4. Even with regard to the second plea raised on
 behalf of the appellant that the same will have to be
 rejected having regard to the concurrent finding of
 fact recorded by the two Courts below. The two
 Courts below have found as of fact that consideration
 amount in the sum of Rs.31,000/- was paid to the
 defendant No.2 at the time of execution of the sale
 deed. The argument of the appellant that the witness
 supported the case of the appellant has been rightly
 discarded by giving preference to the documentary
 evidence on record.

¶23

 5. Taking any view of the matter, there is no
 merit in this appeal. In any case, no substantial
 question of law arises for consideration. Hence,
 dismissed.

¶24

(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Shri Prakash Sadba Dalvi v. Smt. Kusumbai Hanmantbhosale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Prakash Sadba Dalvi v. Smt. Kusumbai Hanmantbhosale

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

Sardar Mammohansingh Avtarsingh Gujral Vs Kamaljit Kaur W/O.Sardar M.Avtarsingh Gujral

Trimbak Bandu Kadam Vs Smt. Kalpana Dattatraya Kadam

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs Jackson Auto Engg. and Ors.

Nalini Vijayak Joshi. Vs Neelkantha v.Joshi and Anr.

Bajirao Sayaji Jadhav Vs Vishnu Kedu Nirbhavane

Shri Pralhad Mahadeorao Ghorpade Vs Smt. Shalanvilas Khandagale