Dismissed

Mohanlal Kisanji Belsare v. Deokabai Ganeshrao Wath and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2007SA/677/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal regarding succession and property rights, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) rejected the appellant's challenge to the lower courts' finding that an adopted son was not entitled to share in his adoptive mother's property due to her will. The court held the findings were not perverse.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was summarily rejected and dismissed.

Mohanlal Kisanji Belsare Vs Deokabai Ganeshrao… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR

¶3

Second Appeal No.677/2006

¶4

Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders : Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

Coram : A.P.Lavande, J . Dated : 20/3 / 2007

¶6

Heard Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶7

By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and decree 21^st April 2006 passed by 1^st Adhoc Additional District Judge, Achalpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.89/93 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against common judgment and decree dated 30.9.1993 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. Daryapur in Special Civil Suit Nos. 2/81 and 43/81. Special Civil Suit No.2/81 was filed by the plaintiff seeking reliefs of declaration, possession of immovable property and in the alternative for partition and separate possession. Counter suit No.43/91 filed by defendant no.1 against the plaintiff herein. The trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by the present

¶8

¶9

appellant and also partly decreed the suit filed by Sarubai. The trial Court has held that the plaintiff is adopted son of plaintiff Sarubai but he is not entitled to any share in the property left by Sarubai in view of Will executed by her on 14.3.1985. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and more particularly, the finding of trial Court that the plaintiff who is adopted son of Salubai is not entitled to any share in her property is totally perverse.

¶10

Having perused the records including the judgments passed by both the Courts below and having considered the submissions made by Mr. Agrawal, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The finding of the trial Court that though the appellant is the adopted son of Salubai is not entitled to any share in the property has been arrived at upon proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties and, in my opinion, the said finding given by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal warranting interference in second appeal. I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in

¶11

¶12

the matter. Hence, the appeal is summarily rejected.

¶13

JUDGE

¶14

Mohanlal Kisanji Belsare v. Deokabai Ganeshrao Wath and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanlal Kisanji Belsare v. Deokabai Ganeshrao Wath and 4 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

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

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

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