Umrao Ibrahim Pathan and Others v. Lailabee Isak Muzawar and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal against decree for partition under CPC Section 100. Court found no substantial question of law required framing as lower courts correctly assessed evidence against Hiba and relinquishment claims. Appeal not admitted.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed; Civil Appeal pending disposed accordingly.
What the court decided
1 930-SA-381-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO.381 OF 2016
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8277 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 381OF 2016
- Umrao s/o Ibrahim Pathan, Age :- Major, Occ. Agri.,
- Bapu s/o Ibrahim Pathan, Age :- Major, Occ. Agri.,
- Rasul s/o Ibrahim Pathan, Age :- Major, Occ. Agri.,
All above R/o:- Chorakhali, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. ….Appellants (Original deft.no.1 to 3)
Versus
- Lailabee w/o Isak Muzawar, Age :- 50 years, Occu. Agri. & Household, R/o: Wagholi, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
- Rubab @ Fatema w/o Zaheer Shaikh, Age :- Major, Occu. Agri. R/o: Andora, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. ...Respondents (resp. no. 1 is orig. plaintiff and resp. no.2 is orig. defendant no.4)
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises given the concurrent findings on partition and Hiba.
Whether evidence supports the claim of collective Hiba and relinquishment of shares by daughters.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Umrao s/o Ibrahim Pathan
- appellant
Bapu s/o Ibrahim Pathan
- appellant
Rasul s/o Ibrahim Pathan
- respondent
Lailabee w/o Isak Muzawar
- respondent
Rubab @ Fatema w/o Zaheer Shaikh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court