Dismissed

Shri. Raosaheb Raigonda Patil and Ors. v. Shri. Babu Huvanna Patil (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs) and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2023SA/275/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a second appeal in a partition suit. The appellant contested that a prior decree binding on his father should not bind him, arguing he was not a party. The court found the appeal lacked a substantial question of law and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed. Civil Application also dismissed. No cost.

Shri. Raosaheb Raigonda Patil and Ors. Vs Shri. Babu Huvanna Patil… — Partition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

20-SA-275-2015.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO.275 OF 2015 WITH

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 605 OF 2015

¶5

Shri. Raosaheb Raigonda Patil And Ors. v/s.

¶6

...Appellants

¶7

Shri. Babu Huvanna Patil (Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs) And Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Umesh Mankapure a/w. Bhavika Shinde for Appellant. Mr. Vijay Killedar for Respondent No.1A.

¶10

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶11

DATED : 11 DECEMBER 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

This Second Appeal is filed against concurrent finding recorded by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. Appellants are original Plaintiffs. The Second Appeal is pending for admission for the year 2015.

¶14

The Defendant had earlier filed Suit being RCS No.181 of 1973 for partition. That suit was decreed so also Appeal arising out that suit was dismissed. The decree in that suit was confirmed by High Court. The father of present Appellant was Defendant in that suit. .

¶15

The present Plaintiff filed this suit for partition of all

Amol D. Nawale

20-SA-275-2015.doc

the properties mentioned in that suit. However, both Courts have held that the Plaintiff not able to prove that the entire properties are ancestral properties and joint family properties. It is admitted position that the earlier suit filed by Defendant No.1-Babu Patil was answered in favour of Defendant No.1 not only by the Trial Court and Appellate Court but also by the High Court so also by the Supreme Court. Only grievance raised by the present Plaintiff is that they were not parties to the earlier litigation, therefore, the decree is not binding on him.

¶20

Admittedly, the father of the present Plaintiff was party to said litigation. Appellant original Plaintiff can not now take stand that the previous litigation where his father was party to the said decree not binding on him. In my view in order to avoid to give possession in the execution proceeding, the present suit was filed.

¶21

According to me no substantial question of law arises in this matter. Hence, Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application also stand dismissed. No cost.

¶22

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶23

¶24

Amol D. Nawale

Shri. Raosaheb Raigonda Patil and Ors. v. Shri. Babu Huvanna Patil (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Raosaheb Raigonda Patil and Ors. v. Shri. Babu Huvanna Patil (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition Officer Nahsik and Anr. vs Shri. Dhondu Yevaji Mahale and Ors.

Nitin Kisan Bankar Vs Sonali Nitin Bankar and Anr.

Vasudevan K Paramathi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jijabai Mahadu Rakshe Vs Pandurang Mathu Khangte(Decd.Thr.Lrs) Ramesh Pandurang Khangte and Ors.

Salim Kamruddin Sayyed Vs Ruksar Salim Sayyed and Anr.

Sushma Tukaram Salunkhe Vs 1 Smt. Ganhari Tukaram Salugade