The appellate court dismissed the appeal against money decrees passed in a civil suit. No substantial question of law arose, and the findings that the defendant failed to prove her legal marital status were upheld.
Second Appeal dismissed; Civil Applications 615 of 2009 and 616 of 2009 disposed of accordingly.
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.
CAS358_13.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.358 OF 2013
IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.7001 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.615 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.616 OF 2009
Tai Yashwant Adsule … Applicant/Appellant Vs. Shantabai Yashwant Adsule and others … Respondents
Mr. K. Y. Mandlik i/b. Mr. V. V. Gangurde for the Applicant-Appellant. Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad for the Respondent No.1.
CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 19TH MARCH, 2013
P.C.:
Heard Mr. Mandlik, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.7001 OF 2009 WITH C.A.NO.615 OF 2009 AND C.A.NO.616 OF 2009
By consent of the parties, Second Appeal is taken up for admission.
1/5
CAS358_13.sxw
(i) an amount of Rs.32,593/- from defendant Nos.1 and 6 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Suit till the realization of the entire amount;
(ii) an amount of Rs.5,200/- from defendant Nos.4 and 6 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Suit till realization of the entire amount;
(iii) an amount of Rs.4,910/- from defendant Nos.5 and 6 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Suit till realization of the entire amount; and
(iv) an amount of Rs.69,476/- from the defendant No.6 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Suit till realization of the entire amount.
2/5
CAS358_13.sxw
i. Though the plaintiff did not pray for any decree against the appellant-original defendant No.6, the Courts below passed money decree against the defendant No.6 jointly and severally along with other defendants. He submitted that the decree passed against the defendant No.6 is, therefore, unsustainable and is liable to be interfered with;
ii. Defendant No.6 was not given fair and reasonable opportunity to defend her case;
iii. The Courts below wrongly came to the conclusion that the defendant No.6 is not a legally wedded wife of Yashwant;
3/5
CAS358_13.sxw
evidence to substantiate her claim that she is the legally wedded wife of Yashwant. In view thereof, I do not find that the Courts below committed any error in holding that despite opportunity being given, the defendant No.6 did not lead any evidence.
4/5
CAS358_13.sxw
(R. G. KETKAR, J.)
Minal Parab
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal involves a substantial question of law requiring interference with the decree passed against the appellant.
Whether the appellant was given a fair opportunity to defend and whether the findings regarding her marital status are supportable.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Tai Yashwant Adsule
Shantabai Yashwant Adsule
R. G. KETKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
