This is a second appeal regarding a suit for partition of property. The judgment below dismissed the appeal as no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The single judge accordingly dismissed the second appeal.
The second appeal was dismissed with no interference with the orders below.
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 BOMBAY AT GOA
SECOND APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2013
MR. BABALI GOPAL GAONKR AND 21 ORS., ... Appellants Versus MRS. SHEVATU FONDU GAONKAR AND 10 ORS., ... Respondents
... Respondents
Mr. C. Coutinho, Advocate for the Appellants.
Coram:R. M. SAVANT, J.
Date:9th October, 2013
P.C:
The Judgment and Decree passed by the Lower Appellant Court i.e. by the Learned Adhoc District Judge-II, FTC, South Goa, Margao dated 5/11/2012, whereby the decree passed by the Trial Court dated 31/1/2011 came to be be confirmed is the subject matter of the above second appeal.
2
an area of 42025 square metres approximately. The plaintiff and the defendants are related in as much as the plaintiff no.1 is the brother-in-law of the defendant no.1. The claim for partition was founded on the Deed of Settlement of the year 1983, by which Deed the said property was divided into seven equal shares. The reason for executing the Deed of Settlement in the year 1983 was that the said property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff no.1 and the father-in-law of defendant no.1 i.e Gopal Fondu Gaonkar for the benefit of all the children, though it was purchased in the name of the eldest son Fondu who is the husband of the defendant no.1. It is on the said basis that the plaintiff claimed 1/7th share in the suit property. The defendants i.e the defendant no.1 set up a defence that the said property was purchased by the defendant no.1 by taking a loan from the Goa Co-operative Bank and therefore, it is the defendant no.1, who is the exclusive owner of the same. The defendants also took up a defence that the Deed of Settlement was a fraudulent document as it was got executed from the defendant no.1 by misrepresentation and by playing a fraud. The efficacy of the Deed of Settlement for partitioning the property was also questioned on the ground that on behalf of the owners the father himself had signed the same without going through the process of obtaining permission through the family council etc. The maintainability of the suit was questioned on the ground that the sisters, who were necessary parties to the suit for partition were not joined as parties and as such the suit filed was not maintainable.
3
4
accordingly has by judgment and order dated 31/1/2011 dismissed the suit.
R. M. SAVANT, J.
ap/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the dismissed appeal below should be allowed or rejected in the second appeal.
Mr. Babali Gopal Gaonkar and 21 Ors.
Mrs. Shevatu Fondu Gaonkar and 10 Ors.
R. M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
