In an appeal against a decree for partition, the Single Judge observed no question of law arose as the appellant failed to substantiate evidence for self-acquired property or prior partition, dismissing the appeal.
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 11.80.20 SAST.doc
ISM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 80 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2020
Baburao Tukaram Patil (Deceased through LR’s Rajlaxmi Baburao Patil and others
.....Appellants
V/s.
Usha Hindurao Khurandale and others
.....Respondents
Mr. Anilkumar Matle i/b Ms. Archana P. Gaikwad for the appellant Mr. Datta Pawar for respondent no. 1
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : JANUARY 7, 2020.
P.C.
Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to remove all
offce objections including that of pay ent of defcit court fee, if anym.
Learned counsel Shri. Pawar appears for respondent no. 1 i.e. original plaintiff.
2 11.80.20 SAST.doc
2] In a suit for partition initiated bym respondent no. 1, learned Trial Court on March 9, 2012 passed a Decree for partition which was confrmed in Appeal.
3] While questioning both these judgments, learned counsel for the appellant-original defendant would invite attention of this Court to the revenue entrym carried out on March 20, 1998 in relation to the suit propertym so as to claim that propertym was alreadym subjected to partition. According to him, both the Courts below failed to appreciate the aforesaid issue as the said issue goes to the root of the matter. If the theorym of partition prior to the fling of the suit is accepted, respondent no. 1 is disentitled for anym relief as claimed.
4] Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 opposed the claim. According to him, issue of partition was never raised before the Court below and for the frst time, same is sought to be canvassed in the Second Appeal. He sought dismissal.
3 11.80.20 SAST.doc
6] Perusal of the written statement of appellant-defendant no. 1 demonstrate that the case of the appellant was that of simplicitor denial. According to appellant, Tukaram expired on October 20, 1960 and as such, appellant continued to be in possession of the suit propertym for last more than 40 ymears. It is also claimed bym the appellant that his deceased brother executed a Registered Relinquishment Deed in his favour and as such, Appellant became owner of the Gat no. 27. Plot No. 29 was purchased bym him out of his earnings.
7] As regards acquisition of the propertym out of his own earning is concerned, appellant has failed to adduce anym evidence to establish the same, as a consequence of which the Court below decreed the suit for partition.
4 11.80.20 SAST.doc
9] In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, Interim Application for staym also stands disposed of.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court and Appellate Court below erred in decreeing a partition suit given the revenue entry of 1998 and the appellant's claim of prior partition and self-acquired property without ev
Baburao Tukaram Patil (Deceased through LRs)
Usha Hindurao Khurandale
NITIN W. SAMBRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
