Dismissed

Sushila Dhondu Gurav Deceased v. Rajesh Krushna Gurav

Bombay HC24 Apr 2024SA/231/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenges the dismissal of a suit claiming ownership of suit property based on alleged oral partition funded by the appellant's late husband. The court rejected the challenge, upholding the first appellate court's view that without registration and payment of stamp duty, the Karar Patra could not effect title transfer.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal was rejected and the Interim Application was disposed of as it does not survive.

Sushila Dhondu Gurav Deceased Vs Rajesh Krushna Gurav — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

15_sa_231_2024.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO.231 OF 2024
W ITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7757 OF 2024
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.231 OF 2024

¶4

Sushila Dhondu Gurav since deceased
through LRs.- Sanjay Dhondu Gurav

¶5

...Appellant/Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajesh Krushna Gurav and Ors....Respondents

¶8

...

¶9

Mr. Rohan P. Surve for the Appellant/Applicant.

¶10

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶11

DATED : 24 APRIL 2024.

¶12

PC:

¶13

1.Challenge in the present appeal is to the Decree dated 21
October, 2023 passed by the District Judge, Khed, District-Ratnagiri.
The first Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and has reversed the
Decree dated 18 March 2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Dapoli in Regular Civil Suit No.10 of 2007.

¶14

2. The Suit of the Plaintiff-Sushila was premised essentially Digitally signed by MEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR on Agreement (Karar Patra) dated 15 March 1971. She contended SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date: 2024.04.30 18:01:57 +0530 that though purchase of the suit land under the provisions of Sections 32G and 32M of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands

¶15

Megha

¶16

1/3

¶17

15_sa_231_2024.docx

¶18

Act, 1948 took place in the name of Shankar, funds for such purchase
were provided for by Plaintiff’s husband-Dhondu Ganpat Gurav. She
further contended that since such purchased property formed joint
family property, partition took place between Shankar and Dhondu,
under which suit property came to the share of Plaintiff’s husband -
Dhondu Gurav. That the factum of such oral partition was merely
recorded in the form of Karar Patra executed on 15 March 1971
between Sushila and Shankar.

¶19

3.Though the Trial Court believed theory set up by
Plaintiff/Appellant and proceeded to decree the Suit by holding that
the suit property was owned by Dhondu Ganpat Gurav, after whose
death Plaintiff No.1A-Sanjay Dhondu Gurav has become owner
thereof, the first Appellate Court has reversed the Decree of the Trial
Court and has dismissed the Suit filed by the Plaintiff.

¶20

4.I have heard Mr. Surve, the learned counsel appearing for
the Appellant and has considered the submissions canvassed by him.

¶21

5.There is no dispute to the position that the Suit property
was tenanted land. As on the tillers day, the same was cultivated by
Shankar Ganpat Gurav. Thus Shankar Ganpat Gurav, in his
individual capacity, became tenant in respect of the Suit property.
Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff’s husband Dhondu Gurav provided
funds for purchase of the tenanted land under Sections 32G and 32M of
the Tenancy Act to Shankar Gurav, the same does not convert the
Megha 2/3

¶22

15_sa_231_2024.docx

¶23

status of the land as joint family property. Since Shankar was
cultivating the property on the tillers day, he alone was the tenant and
he alone became owner in respect thereof after issuance of 32M
certificate.When a Suit land was not a joint family property, there was
no question of partitioning the same. Therefore, theory of oral
partition between Shankar and Sushila cannot be accepted.

¶24

6.In view of the above, if the title in the land was to be
transferred from Shankar in favour of Sushila, the same ought to have
been effected by a registered deed of Sale or Gift. Karar Patra dated
15 March 1971, though ostensibly shown as mere memorandum
recording partition which had allegedly taken place, the same was in
fact intended for effecting transfer of title from Shankar in favour of
Sushila. In absence of payment of stamp duty and registration, the
first Appellate Court has rightly proceeded to discard the effect of said
Karar Patra. I am of the view that the first Appellate Court has not
committed any palpable error in holding that the Karar Patra did not
have effect of transfer of title from Shankar to Sushila. Thus, no
substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The Second
Appeal is rejected and accordingly disposed of.

¶25

7.In view of disposal of the Second Appeal, the Interim
Application No.7757 of 2024 does not survive and hence stands
disposed of.

¶26

[ SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ]

¶27

Megha

¶28

3/3

Sushila Dhondu Gurav Deceased v. Rajesh Krushna Gurav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Dhondu Gurav Deceased v. Rajesh Krushna Gurav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leopold Cafe Kamgar Sanghatana vs Leopold Cafe and Stores

Percept Finserve Private Limited vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai

Mohammed Zain Khan Vs Emnoy Properties India a Limited Liability Partnership Mumbai- 400052 and Ors.

Mahendra C Shah Vs the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and 4 Ors.

Brighton Facility India Maintenance Services LLP vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Tanaji Malusare City Association through K.N. Chandramouli Vs the State of Maharashtra