Dismissed

Smt. Sucheta W/O Sachin Iyer v. Sachin S/O Krishnamurthy Iyer and Another

Bombay HC9 Dec 2021CAF/411/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses two civil applications seeking amendment of the appeal memo and addition of a subsequent purchaser of the suit property as a party respondent. The High Court held that the dispute was beyond the Family Court's jurisdiction, the applications lacked substance, and were accordingly rejected. The appellant was directed to approach the Civil Court for redress.

What did the court decide?

Both civil applications for amendment of the appeal memo and addition of a respondent are rejected.

Smt. Sucheta W/O Sachin Iyer Vs Sachin S/O Krishnamurthy… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

214-CA-411-14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.411 OF 2014
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.607 OF 2014
IN
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 260 OF 2014

¶5

SMT. SUCHETA W/O SACHIN IYER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

SACHIN S/O KRISHNAMURTHY IYER AND ANOTHER

¶8

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders

¶10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶11

Shri S. V. Purohit, Advocate for applicant/appellant.

¶12

Shri A. M. Sudame, Advocate for respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2.i) and 2.ii).

¶13

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND G. A. SANAP, JJ. DATE : 09/12/2021

¶14

The appellant has made the application bearing Civil
Application No.411/2014 for the amendment of the Memo of
Appeal and Civil Application No.607/2014 for addition of Shri
Sumukh s/o Mukesh Mishra, the purchaser of the suit house as
respondent No.3.

¶15

It is stated in the amendment application that on
08/01/2014, the respondent No.2 sold the suit house to the
proposed respondent No.3. It is stated that in view of the decree
of injunction granted by the Family Court, the sale deed would
be null and void. The appellant and her daughters are
occupying the entire first floor of the suit house. It is stated that
in order to have proper adjudication of the appeal, the
amendment sought for in the appeal memo is necessary.
Similarly, it is stated that since the sale deed is null and void,

¶16

2 214-CA-411-14

¶17

for the purpose of adjudication of the said issue in the appeal,
the subsequent purchaser would be necessary party.

¶18

We have heard the learned Advocate for the
appellant and the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 and
legal heirs of respondent No.2. Perused the record and
proceedings.

¶19

On going through the record and proceedings, we
are of the view that the dispute sought to be agitated by
incorporating the amendment and by addition of the purchaser
as party in this appeal, would be beyond the scope of the
jurisdiction of the Family Court. The appellant would be
required to file appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court
for redressal of grievance made in the amendment application
as well as application for addition of the purchaser as party
respondent No.3 in this appeal. The appeal has been filed
against the Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court in
exercise of jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act, 1984. In
this appeal, the scope of jurisdiction of the Family Court cannot
be widened. The amendment application as well as the
application for addition of the parties is, therefore, not tenable
in this appeal. The issue which falls outside the jurisdiction of
the Court cannot be allowed to be agitated by amending the
pleading to incorporate the relevant facts touching the said
dispute.

¶20

In our view, there is no substance in both the
applications. The appellant would be required to take recourse
to the available remedy to redress her grievance before the Civil
Court. Both the applications are accordingly rejected.

¶21

3 214-CA-411-14

¶22

The civil applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶23

 (G. A. SANAP, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶24

Choulwar

¶25

VITHAL Digitally signed byVITHAL MAROTRAO MAROTRAO CHOULWAR CHOULWAR Date: 2021.12.2018:34:22 +0530

Smt. Sucheta W/O Sachin Iyer v. Sachin S/O Krishnamurthy Iyer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sucheta W/O Sachin Iyer v. Sachin S/O Krishnamurthy Iyer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudha W/O Khushal Khobragade Thr. P.O.A Akash Khobragade Vs M/S Hotel Darshan Tower Thr. Its Manager

Leeladevi W/O Mangilalji Jain Thr. P.O.A. Brijesh Mangilalji Jain(Dead)Thr. Lrs. Vinod M. Jain Vs Shri Aniruddha S/O Laxmanrao Palkar and Others

Leeladevi W/O Mangilalji Jain Thr. P.O.A. Brijesh Mangilalji Jain(Dead)Thr. Lrs. Vinod M. Jain Vs Shri Aniruddha S/O Laxmanrao Palkar and Others

Smt. Sucheta W/O Sachin Iyer Vs Sachin S/O Krishnamurthy Iyer and Another

Azrullah Inamdar S/O.Shamiulla Inamdar. Vs Mst.Asefa Anjum W/O.Azrullah.

Hareshwar S/O Dadarao Rarokar and Others Vs Rajesh Bhusari, Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kalamna, Nagpur