Dismissed

Rajaram Shiva@ Shivaji Mane v. Tanaji Shiva@ Shivaji Mane and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2024SA/143/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenged the concurrent judgments granting shares in a partition suit. The appellant argued the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was inapplicable. The CPC Bench held the appeal did not raise a substantial question of law due to the settled legal position and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed due to absence of substantial question of law.

Rajaram Shiva@ Shivaji Mane vs Tanaji Shiva@ Shivaji Mane and Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

33.143.24 sa.docx

¶2

Iresh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 143 OF 2024

¶5

Rajaram Shiva @ Shivaji Mane

¶6

.....Appellant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Tanaji Shiva @ Shivaji Mane and Ors

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale for the appellant Mr. S. A. Rajeshirke for the respondents

¶11

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 13^th DECEMBER 2024.

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

IRESH MASHAL

¶14

Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2024.12.21 15:57:31 +0530

¶15

Heard learned counsels for the parties. This second appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees granting 1/3^rd share to the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff had prayed for 5/12^th share in the suit property. Hence, being aggrieved by the determination of the shares, the plaintiff

¶16

filed the first appeal which is dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the original holder i.e. father expired on 4^th November 2008 before commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. He

¶18

therefore, submits that the amended section would not apply to the

¶19

1/2

¶20

33.143.24 sa.docx

¶21

facts of the case and the daughter would not be entitled to seek share. Learned counsel submits that the issue regarding determination of the shares in view of the amended Hindu Succession Act is required to be considered by this Court as the same raises substantial questions of law.

¶22

I have perused the judgments. The relation between the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiff and defendant no. 1 are brothers and defendant no. 2 is the sister. Defendant no. 3 was mother who expired. Hence, both the Courts have granted equal share to the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2.

¶23

In view of the settled legal principles by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinita Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma¹ the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants would not require any consideration by this Court.

¶24

In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts on the facts, the second appeal would not raise any question of law. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed.

¶25

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶26

1 (2020) 9 SCC 1

¶27

2/2

Rajaram Shiva@ Shivaji Mane v. Tanaji Shiva@ Shivaji Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram Shiva@ Shivaji Mane v. Tanaji Shiva@ Shivaji Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Monica Nana vs Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika and Others

Bharti Bhimrao Havaldar and Ors. vs Gajanan Ramu @ Ramchandra Choudhari and Ors.

Jagannath Ganpati Mundhe and Others vs Chandrahas Kisanrao Jadhav and Others

Ramchandra Mahadev Karande Decesed Legal Hier Dwarkabai Ramchandra Karande vs Bharat Govind Karande

Mahesh Bharagav Shinde vs the Chief Officer

Satyappa Yamaji Naik and Ors. vs Masanabai Gundu Naik through Lrs Anubai Vithoba Naik and Ors.