Second appeal by original defendants against concurrent decrees for partition and separate possession of ancestral joint family properties. The court found no substantial question of law, declined to reappreciate evidence, and dismissed the appeal along with the interim application.
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.
Iresh
58.28.24 sa.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1456 OF 2024 IN
SECOND APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2024
Shankar Tatya Karle Through .....Appellant Legal Heirs
Vs.
Balu Babu Karle Through His Legal .....Respondent Heirs
Mr. Vijay B. Dighe for the appellant Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar for the respondent
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 11th JUNE 2024
ORDER:
challenge the concurrent Judgments and Decrees for partition and separate possession.
1/4
58.28.24 sa.docx
belonging to the joint family were partitioned, and the plaintiffs were given a share in respect of the properties situated at Chandus village. He, therefore, submits that the suit properties belong to the appellants, and they are in exclusive possession, being exclusive owners of the suit properties. He submits that the plaintiffs have no concern with the suit properties. He further submitted that the plaintiffs also admitted that there was a partition of the original joint family properties. It is also submitted that the suit was hit by a non-joinder of necessary parties as the third son of Laxman, i.e. Genu, was not added as a party defendant in the suit.
2/4
58.28.24 sa.docx
contention. The First Appellate Court has dealt with the objection on non-joinder of necessary parties. The Appellate Court has held that Genu was given in adoption and, hence, did not continue as a member of the joint family of Laxman. Hence, the objection on the ground of non- joinder of necessary parties was disbelieved by the Appellate Court. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court.
3/4
58.28.24 sa.docx
partition, which is disbelieved by both the Courts. Thus, the grounds raised on behalf of the appellants are based on facts and evidence on record. The second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
IRESH MASHAL
Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2024.06.19 12:47:06 +0530
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal raised a substantial question of law regarding alleged prior partition and non-joinder of Genu as a necessary party.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shankar Tatya Karle Through Legal Heirs
Balu Babu Karle Through His Legal Heirs
Gauri Godse
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
