In a second appeal regarding a partition suit involving a 1967 sale deed, the single judge rejected the appeal, finding no serious error or substantial question of law.
The Second Appeal is rejected.
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.
k 1/2 31 sa 450.20 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2020
Bhimrao Raghunath Sing (Shinde) deceased through L.Rs. & Ors. ....Appellants V/S Pandurang Ganpati Shewade deceased through L.Rs. & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr. S.A. Rajeshirke for the Appellants.
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 27, 2024.
P.C.:
1 By this Appeal the Appellants challenge judgment and decree dated 7 July 2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Islampur dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.69 of 2011 and confirming the decree dated 29 March 2011 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Sangli in Regular Civil Suit No.28 of 2004.
2 The original Plaintiff, of whom Appellants are legal heirs, instituted Regular Civil Suit No.28 of 2004 seeking a declaration that he has a share in the suit property and that the same be partitioned and separate shares should be allotted to him. He also challenged the mutation entry in respect of the land which was not covered by sale deed executed in favour of Defendant Nos.1 and 2.
1/2
katkam
k 2/2 31 sa 450.20 as.doc
3 Defendant No.1 and 2 appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement pleading that the entire suit property was sold to them by Plaintiff’s father and this is how they claim ownership in respect of the entire suit property. Though Plaintiff alleges that his father did not have right to sale Plaintiff’s share in the suit property, Plaintiff failed to take any steps to challenge the sale deed executed by his father in favour of Defendant Nos.1 and 2. The sale deed in question appears to have been executed in the year 1967 whereas the suit for partition and separate possession was lodged by the Plaintiff on 5 March 2004.
4 In my view therefore no serious error can be traced in the orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law is involved in the Appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly rejected.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SUDARSHAN
SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM
RAJALINGAM KATKAM
KATKAM Date:
2024.02.29
17:37:58
+0530
2/2
katkam
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the industrial court could trace error in the lower courts dismissing the appeal on a disputed sale deed from 1967.
Whether a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.
Bhimrao Raghunath Sing (Shinde) deceased through L.Rs. & Ors.
Pandurang Ganpati Shewade deceased through L.Rs. & Ors.
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
