Dismissed

Gotiram Jairam Deshmukh v. Dwakanath Jairam Deshmukh and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2013SA/202/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Second Appeal regarding a partition suit, the single judge dismissed the appeal at the stage of admission. The court held that the lower courts correctly found no substantial question of law and appropriately rejected the appellant's vague claims of oral partition.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed at the stage of admission; Civil Application No.518 of 2011 also dismissed.

Gotiram Jairam Deshmukh Vs Dwakanath Jairam Deshmukh and Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

rng

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.202 OF 2011 Gotiram Jairam Deshmukh .. Appellant

¶3

vs.

¶4

Dwarkanath Jairam Deshmuklh & ors . Respondents

¶5

Mr.Roshan Tanna a/w Mr. K.S.Dewal for Appellant CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATED : 14.1.2013

¶6

P. C.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant.

¶8

Suit for partition being Regular Civil Suit No.8/1997 in the Court of C.J.D.Khalapur by Respondent no.1 was decreed by a Judgment and decree dated 31.1.2007. Civil Appeal No.56/2007 filed in the District Court was also dismissed by a Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2010. Hence, this Second Appeal.

¶9

Learned Advocate for the Appellant Mr.Roshan Tanna contended that

¶10

it was case of the Appellant that prior to institution of the suit way back in 1979 oral partition had taken place and that properties which stood in the name of Appellant were so allotted to him in the said oral partition. Case of the oral partition has been declined by both Courts below. Even before this Court, the Appellant could not indicate the date or month of 1979 as regards the oral partition. In view of the concurrent findings recorded

¶11

rng

¶12

against the present Appellant about oral partition no interference can be made in this Appeal. It was sought to be contended by learned Advocate for Appellant that the during life time of the father of present Appellant, the properties in question stood in the name of present Appellant and that was an indication of the fact that the said properties involved in the present proceedings were separate properties. This stand cannot be accepted. In my view, when a large number of properties are involved it is possible that properties may stand in the names of various persons. In my view, the nature of property viz whether the same is self-acquired property or ancestral property would get disclosed when the suit for partition is filed, and the parties get a chance to lead evidence.

¶13

For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to observe that that the Courts below have arrived at a proper conclusion. No substantial question of law is involved.

¶14

Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Accordingly,

¶15

Civil Application No.518 of 2011 is also dismissed.

¶16

rng

Gotiram Jairam Deshmukh v. Dwakanath Jairam Deshmukh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gotiram Jairam Deshmukh v. Dwakanath Jairam Deshmukh 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

Ganya Parsna Bhagat and Ors. Vs Smt. Gunabai Vishnu Patl and Ors.

Jayram Pandurang Bhabad Vs Deoram Bandu Bhabad

Shri Chandrakant Anandrao Mahangade Vs Shrimati Shakuntala Anandrao

Smt. Shantabai Ananda Khochare Vs Chandrabhaga Baburao Yadav

Shri Ramesh Madhukar Pawar Vs Shri Chhaganlal Sohanlal Agarwal

Smt. Masnabai Kedari Tambade Vs Shri. Shantaram Kedari Tambade