The single judge dismissed a second appeal challenging the dismissal of a partition suit. The court held the properties were not joint family assets but independent assets of the defendant, finding no substantial question of law.
Second appeal dismissed; associated civil applications dismissed as infructuous.
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.
40-SA-249-2015.docx
rrpillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1168 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1309 OF 2015
Shri Rajendra Basaveshwar Malge … Appellant/Applicant Vs. Shri Basaveshwar Sidramappa Malge … Respondent
Mr. Samir Kumbhakoni for the Appellant. Mr. Vishwasrao Deokar for Respondent No. 3 (through VC). Mr. Suhas Inamdar for Respondent No. 6 and 7 in CA/1168/2017.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2024
ORDER :
by the original plaintiff to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for partition and separate possession in respect of the property described in the plaint in paragraphs 2(B) and 2(C). The trial court allowed the rest of the prayer
for partition and separate possession. The said decree is confirmed by
1/5
40-SA-249-2015.docx
the First Appellate Court in an appeal preferred by the plaintiff. The decree for partition and separate possession with respect to the remaining property is accepted by the defendants.
2/5
40-SA-249-2015.docx
both the properties. To support his submission, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the findings of the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court. He submits that since the house property was purchased before the Arbitration Award recording partition, it is obvious that it also belongs to the joint family property. He thus submits that rejection of the plaintiff’s suit for partition and separate possession described in paragraphs 2(B) and 2(C) would amount to misappreciation of the evidence on record. He thus submits that the Second Appeal would require consideration on the aforesaid points, which raises substantial questions of law.
3/5
40-SA-249-2015.docx
4/5
40-SA-249-2015.docx
by both courts. The Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
RAJESHWARI Digitally signed byRAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2024.10.03 20:06:46+0530
5/5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit properties belonged to the joint family and the plaintiff was entitled to a share.
Whether the appellate courts erred in finding that the properties were independent assets of the defendant.
Whether a substantial question of law arose in the second appeal regarding the facts of the case.
Rajendra Basaveshwar Malge
Basaveshwar Sidramappa Malge
Gauri Godse
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
