Dr. Ravindra v. Parulekar and Anr., v Damodar v Parulekar and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Bombay at Goa affirmed the lower court order rejecting appellants' claims to separate bequeathed property from inventory proceedings and for maintenance compensation due to evidentiary gaps regarding property specifics and expenditure sources, leaving these matters for the Inventory Court.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed leaving issue of compensation for evidentiary determination by the Inventory Court.
What the court decided
1
AO 52 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 52 OF 2019
- Dr. Ravindra V. Parulekar, and his spouse, 2. Smt. Smita Ravindra V. Parulekar, both residents of House No.179, Patrong, Baina, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa- 403 802. …..... Appellants
- Mr. Damodar V. Parulekar, and his spouse, Smt. Rupali Damdoar Parulekar, both residents of House No. H-12, Hill View, Madhuban Co-operative, Housing Society Ltd., St. Inez, P. O. Caranzalem, Panaji,
Goa – 403 002. …...... Respondent
Mr. G. Vijaychandra, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. R. G. Ramani, Senior Advocate with Adv. Ms. Srushti Patil for the Respondents.
CORAM: DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE: 3rd February 2021.
ORDER:
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants can claim separation of bequeathed property from inventory proceedings before property division.
Whether compensation for maintenance of property is yet to be quantified by the Inventory Court.
Whether the lower court order rejecting claims of separation and compensation should be affirmed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Dr. Ravindra V. Parulekar and Smt. Smita Ravindra V. Parulekar
- respondent
Mr. Damodar V. Parulekar and Smt. Rupali Damdoar Parulekar
Coram
Dama Seshadri Naidu
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court