In a second appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad held the partition by the lower courts was sound as proof of a prior 1977 division of joint family property was conclusive, dismissing the appeal that lacked substantial questions of law.
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.
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 66/2007
VITHAL MADHAVRAO LAHURE VERSUS
ATMARAM S/O JAIRAM LAHURE AND OTHERS
________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________
Mr.B.R. Surwase, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Ravindra G. Chavan h/f Mr. G.K. Chavan and Mr. S.G. Chavan for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.3 and 4 absent though served.
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.
Date : 7th July, 2010
PER COURT :
2 The second appeal is filed for challenging the concurrent finding recorded by Courts below that the appellant could not have filed suit for partition because the defendants had proved amply that in 1977, the joint family property was partitioned and pursuant to such partition, the appellant / plaintiff has received his due share. Although there are some errors committed by the learned judges of the courts below while delivering judgments and while framing the
2
issues, yet the jist of the dispute was ‘whether the respondents/defendants could prove that there already occurred partition between the members of the joint Hindu family’. The evidence that has come on record amply proved this disputed question in affirmative and so, the appellant / plaintiff is unable to proceed further in this dispute. The appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal stands dismissed.
[A.V. NIRGUDE, J.]
tsk/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents could prove that a partition between members of the joint Hindu family had already occurred.
Vithal Madhavrao Lahure
Atmaram S/o Jairam Lahure
A.V. Nirgude
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
