A second appeal regarding partition and the exclusion of specific land from joint family property. The court held that the plaintiff did not challenge the prior sale of the land and thus found no insufficient reasoning by lower courts.
The appeal was dismissed as no fault was found with the conclusion reached by the lower courts.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.218 OF 2007
Shri.Shivappa Rakhamaji Khot ...Appellant
Versus
Appasaheb Rakhamaji Khot & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Kuldeep S.Patil for Appellant.
None for Respondents.
CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
JULY 17, 2007.
P.C.
1. Heard Counsel for the Appellant.
2. I find no substance in this Appeal. The
Appeal does not raise any question of law, much
less, substantial question of law.
3. The argument of the Appellant is that the
Courts below committed manifest error in not
reckoning gat No.203 as joint family property so as
to be taken into account for the purpose of
: 2 :
partition. The argument clearly overlooks the
observations in Para 11 of the Appellate Court
Judgment. It is found that the Plaintiff has not
challenged the sale of land gat No.203. The said
land was sold according to the Defendant for legal
necessity of marriage of Defendant’s son. The same
took place much earlier to the Suit for partition.
In other words, it will have to be assumed that
such need was for legal necessity of the family
namely to celebrate the marriage of their family
member, who incidentally happens to be the son of
the Defendant.
4. In my opinion, no fault can be found with
the conclusion reached by the lower Courts. No
case of interference in Second Appeal. Hence,
dismissed.
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts committed a manifest error in excluding gat No.203 from joint family property.
Whether there was any substantial question of law requiring interference in the second appeal.
Shri.Shivappa Rakhamaji Khot
Appasaheb Rakhamaji Khot & Ors.
A.M.KHANWILKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court