Dismissed

Deorao Tukaram Kadam Lrs Aruna and Others v. Shantabai Govindrao Kurme and Others

Bombay HC15 Feb 2024CA/1986/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for stay of execution of a partition decree. The court held ancestral joint family properties were not previously partitioned; post-2005 amendment daughters are coparceners; mutation entries confer no title and relinquishment was unsupported by evidence. Application dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Deorao Tukaram Kadam Lrs Aruna and Others Vs Shantabai Govindrao… — Partition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

ca1986.24.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

954 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1986 OF 2024 IN SA/385/2017

¶5

Deorao Tukaram Kadam Lrs Aruna & others ….Applicants

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Shantabai Govindrao Kurme & others …..Respondents

¶8

Mr. K. R. Yadav, Advocate holding for Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant

¶9

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 15^th FEBRUARY, 2024.

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

This application is for stay to the execution proceeding filed pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1/2007.

¶12

Applicant/appellant is the original defendant in the suit filed by plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their respective shares in the suit properties. There is no dispute about the fact that the suit properties are ancestral properties. It is not the case of defendant that previous partition has taken place in respect of the same. The relationship between plaintiffs and defendant is

¶13

ca1986.24.odt

¶14

admitted. Defendant has admitted in his cross examination that plaintiffs have right to seek share in the suit properties.

¶15

It is the contention of learned counsel for defendant that there was relinquishment of rights by plaintiffs and therefore, there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file suit seeking partition of the suit properties. It is also sought to be argued that after death of father of plaintiffs and defendant in the year 1975, the suit properties are mutated in the name of defendant alone and since the plaintiffs have not challenged said mutation entries, now it is not open for them to seek partition.

¶16

Admittedly, suit properties are joint family properties and there is no previous partition thereof. In view of amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act in the year 2006, daughters being coparceners have acquired equal right in the property of joint family. Exceptions provided to the said provision are not applicable to this case.

¶17

Prima facie, mutation entry does not confer any right or title in favour of any person. Similarly, contention of defendant

¶18

ca1986.24.odt

¶19

about relinquishment of right by plaintiffs in the suit properties does not get support from evidence on record. Judgment relied upon in the case of Bhaurao s/o Harichand Sahare & others vs. Santosh s/o Jairam Sahare & others, 2015(1) ALL MR 302, refers to the situation wherein pursuant to the oral relinquishment done earlier in time, a document came to be recorded which was not registered. Such are not facts pleaded or proved in this case. Thus, facts of the said case differ from the case in hand.

¶20

In prima facie view of this defendant/appellant has not been able to make out any case for grant of injunction/relief. Hence, application is dismissed.

¶21

dyb

Deorao Tukaram Kadam Lrs Aruna and Others v. Shantabai Govindrao Kurme and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Deorao Tukaram Kadam Lrs Aruna and Others v. Shantabai Govindrao Kurme and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bombay Xavierian Corporation, Thru. Trustee Father Anthony Tascano vs Sarosh Abdullah Zakeria, Trustee Jama Masjid Nawayat Trust

Bharmu Subrao Patil the President , Sharada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Yashwantnagar and Anr. vs Shri. Arrjun Bharmu Pituk and Anr.

Public Information Officer vs Prakash P. Kukreja and Anr.

Sahebrao Sonaji Nilkan . Vs Sundarrao Fakirrao Bhutekar and Others.

Sanjidabi Ziyaoddin Kazi L.Rs. Ziauddin L.Rs. Mominabi Azimuddin Biyatani and Others Vs Moinoddin Abdul Rahaman Kazi and Ors.

Sandipan Vithalrao Ingle Vs Babruwan Vithalrao Ingle