Dismissed

Padmabai W/O Namdeo Ingole v. Pralhad Kamaji Tale (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Harnabai Wd/O Pralhad Tale and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2007SA/657/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a partition suit, the High Court rejected the appellant's challenge to lower courts' findings. The courts below held that the plaintiff had relinquished her share in the family property based on her admission during cross-examination. The High Court found no perversity in these findings and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is summarily rejected.

Padmabai W/O Namdeo Ingole Vs Pralhad Kamaji Tale (Dead) Thr. Lrs… — Partition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 657/2006

¶3

Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶4

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.

¶5

CORAM : A..P. Lavande, J DATE : 20.3.2007

¶6

Heard Shri A.K.Somani, learned counsel for the

¶7

appellant.

¶8

By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and decree dated 22.6.2006 passed by the 2^nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Regular Civil Appeal No. 130/03 by which the appeal filed by the appellant against the Judgment and decree dated 3^rd May, 2002 passed by the 3^rd Joint Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Washim in Regular Civil Suit No. 298/2000 has been dismissed..

¶9

The appellant is the original plaintiff and respondents are the original defendants in the above suit. Defendants 1 to 4 are the brothers of the plaintiff.

¶10

¶11

Defendants 5 and 6 are son and wife respectively of Shriram Tale deceased brother of the plaintiff.

¶12

The plaintiff filed the above suit for partition and possession in respect of the suit property belonging to Kamaji Tale who expired 21.11.1988. The plaintiff claimed 1/6^th share in the suit property. The defence of the defendants was that the plaintiff had relinquished her share in the suit property and she had put her thumb impression on the partition-deed executed in the year 1993 between her brothers. In cross-examination the plaintiff admitted that she had put her thumb impression on partition deed and that she had relinquished her share in the suit property. Relying

¶13

upon the said admission the trial court negatived the claim of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession and held that although the plaintiff was entitled to 1/6^th share in the suit property she was not entitled to the reliefs sought for. The lower appellate court confirmed the findings given by the trial court.

¶14

¶15

Mr. Somani, learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff submitted that in the absence of any written relinquishment deed the trial court as well as lower appellate court could not have given the finding of relinquishment in favour of the defendants. He further submitted that the defendants played fraud on the plaintiff and managed to get admission in her cross-examination and, therefore, the application filed before the lower appellate court seeking amendment of the plaint ought to have been allowed. He further submitted that the findings recorded by both the courts are contrary to the evidence on record and as such perverse and, therefore, interference is called for in this appeal.

¶16

6. Having perused the records and having considered

¶17

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The trial court ,in my opinion, was justified in holding that the plaintiff had relinquished her right on the basis of the admission given by her while cross-examination. Having

¶18

¶19

perused the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff before the lower appellate court I find it difficult to accept the statements made therein. In any case, the plaintiff could not have filed an application for amendment in appeal filed by her to get out of the admission made by her on oath during her cross-examination. Therefore, in my opinion, the lower appellate court was justified in dismissing the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff. As stated above, the finding given by the trial court that the plaintiff had relinquished her right to the suit property is the finding based upon admission of the plaintiff and as such cannot be faulted. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by both the courts below. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is summarily rejected.

¶20

Judge

¶21

patle

Padmabai W/O Namdeo Ingole v. Pralhad Kamaji Tale (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Harnabai Wd/O Pralhad Tale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmabai W/O Namdeo Ingole v. Pralhad Kamaji Tale (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Harnabai Wd/O Pralhad Tale and Ors.

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

Mrs Linata Milind Kulkarni Vs Mr. Mil,Ind Shridhar Kulkarni.

Pramod Girmaji Dhande Vs State Aof Mah.Thr.Pso Pulgaon

Ganesh Bhaiyalal Jaiswal and Anor. Vs the State of Mah. Thru. Pso

Murlidhar S/O Ganpatrao Pathak, Nagpur Vs Sanjay @ Pradeep Gopal Sapkal, Nagpur

Mohanlal Kisanji Belsare Vs Deokabai Ganeshrao Wath and 4 Ors.

Dnyantabai Vishnu Daphe and 5 Ors. Vs Dnyaneshwar Sadashiv Bhil and Another