Allowed

Smt. Suvarna Ishwarappa Jamma v. Smt. Mahadevi Mallikarjun Bagelli

Bombay HC6 May 2024SA/196/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, relying on an in-court settlement where the respondent offered Rs. 11 lakhs in lieu of a partitionable 1/7th share, disposed of the second appeal by holding appellants entitled to 1/7th share with monetary satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Appellants held entitled to 1/7th share; Respondent to pay Rs. 11,00,000/- by 15 July 2024 to satisfy the claim; Appeal against Decree of 18 March 2021 dismissed; Interim Applications dismissed.

Smt. Suvarna Ishwarappa Jamma Vs Smt. Mahadevi Mallikarjun Bagelli — Partition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

8-SA-196-2021.docx

¶2

Neeta Sawant

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2021 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1471 OF 2021 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15121 OF 2023

¶5

Smt. Survarna Ishwarappa Jamma and Ors. } .. Appellants/ (Orig. Plaintifs) : Versus : Smt. Mahadevi Mallikarjun Bagelli } .. Respondent (Orig. Defendant)

¶6

Mr. Pankaj Jain, for the Appellants.

¶7

Mr. A.A. Valsangkar a/w. Mr. Samir A. Kumbhakoni,for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 6 May 2024.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1) The present Appeal is fled challenging the Decree dated 18 March 2021 passed by the District Judge, Solapur in Regular Civil Appeal No.192/2017 by which the First Appellate Court has allowed the Appeal fled by the Respondent and has set aside the Decree dated 25 July 2017 passed by the 9^th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Solapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 527/2011.

¶11

_____Page No. 1 of 3____
6 May 2024

¶12

8-SA-196-2021.docx

¶13

Neeta Sawant

¶14

2) I have heard Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. Valsangkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

¶15

After extensive hearing of the Appeal, I am of the view that the Plaintifs are entitled to 1/7th share in the suit property. That therefore though the suit for recovery of possession of the entire suit property and mesne profts could not have been decreed, the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit to the extent of recovery of Plaintifss 1/7th share.

¶16

4) After this Court was about to reverse the Decrees of the Trial and the First Appellate Court by granting 1/7th share to the Plaintifs, Mr. Valsangkar, after taking instructions from his client, who is present in the Court, would submit that, instead of sub-dividing the suit property for the purpose of granting 1/7th share to the Plaintifs, the Defendant is willing to pay amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the Plaintifs in lieu of their 1/7th share in the suit property. This arrangement is acceptable to Mr. Jain who has taken instructions on behalf of his clients, who are also personally present before the Court. Mr. Valsangkar would submit that amount of Rs.11,00,000/- shall be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintifs on/or before 15 July 2024.

¶17

5) Both the learned counsel agree that this Court need not record reasons for granting 1/7th share in the suit property to the Plaintifs. In that view of the matter, the Second Appeal is disposed of by passing following order :

¶18

(i) The Plaintifs are held entitled to recover 1/7th share in the suit property. The prayer for mesne profts however stands rejected.

¶19

_____Page No. 2 of 3____
6 May 2024

¶20

8-SA-196-2021.docx

¶21

Neeta Sawant

¶22

(ii)Instead of carving out and handing over possession of 1/7th share in the suit property to the Plaintifs, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintifs, an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- upon receipt of which, the Plaintifs shall give up all their claims in respect of 1/7th share in the suit property granted as per this order and they shall not have any right or claim in respect of the suit property.

¶23

(iii)Defendant shall pay amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the Plaintifs on/or before 15 July 2024. It is made clear that if Defendant makes any default in payment of Rs.11,00,000/- to the Plaintifs by the stipulated time, in addition to the remedy of initiation of contempt proceedings against the Defendant, Plaintifs shall be entitled to recover possession of 1/7th share in the suit property by fling execution proceedings before the executing Court.

¶24

6) With the above directions, the Second Appeal stands disposed of. In view of rejection of Appeal, Interim Application Nos.1471/2021 and 15121/2023 fled for stay/injunction and other reliefs do not survive. The same also stand disposed of.

¶25

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶26

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2024.05.07 10:40:35 +0530

¶27

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶28

_____Page No. 3 of 3____
6 May 2024

Smt. Suvarna Ishwarappa Jamma v. Smt. Mahadevi Mallikarjun Bagelli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Suvarna Ishwarappa Jamma v. Smt. Mahadevi Mallikarjun Bagelli

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

Krantikari Kamgar Union vs Kuoni Travel (I)Pvt.Ltd.

Nariman Building Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Ramesh Madhukar Apte and 10 Ors.

Damodar Ropeways and Infra Limited Formerly Known as Indian Ropeway and Engineering Co. Limited vs Shree Jivdani Temple Trust Also Known as Shree Jeevdani Devi Mandir Trust

Vardhman Jaypal Avdhut and Ors. Vs Priyanka Dipak Chougule and Ors.

Anr. Group of Company vs the State of Maharashtra

Nashim Ahmed Abdul Kadir vs the Superintendent Mumbai City Survey and Land Records