Narayan Ambadas Muthal Vs Vitthal Ambadas Muthal and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Narayan Ambadas Muthal Vs Vitthal Ambadas Muthal and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Application No.3333 of 2014 allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'A' and 'B' — delay in bringing the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.9 Manikrao Muthal on record condoned and necessary amendment directed. The second appeal itself was not decided on merits: notice was ordered to the respondents for final disposal at the admission stage, the Record and Proceedings were called for, the appellant was permitted to place relevant documents and paper book on record, and the matter was listed for final hearing on 10.12.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both Courts below are sustainable for want of evidence to show the oral partition in the year 1990. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The cause of action survives against the heirs of the deceased respondent (No.9, Manikrao Muthal), even though despite service none of the proposed heirs appeared.

Key takeaways

Civil Application No.3333 of 2014 seeking condonation of delay in bringing the legal heirs of respondent No.9 on record is allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'A' and 'B', and the necessary amendment is to be carried out.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Order, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (Shailesh P. Brahme, J.), dated 04.11.2025, in Second Appeal No.220 of 2014 — Narayan Ambadas Muthal v. Vitthal Ambadas Muthal and Others, with Civil Application No.3333 of 2014. The second appeal arises out of concurrent findings of fact non-suiting the appellant/original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.118 of 2004 for partition and separate possession; the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the decree was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court, which recorded findings on the mutation entry and the oral partition in favour of the appellant. The suit was contested on a plea of oral partition in the year 1990 reflected in mutation entry No.67, and the respondents/defendants did not lead oral evidence despite opportunity. Three substantial questions of law were framed: (i) whether the concurrent findings are sustainable for want of evidence of the 1990 oral partition; (ii) the probative value of mutation entry No.67, uncorroborated by any oral evidence of the defendants, and whether adverse inference should be drawn in view of Vidyadhar v. Manik, (1990) 3 SCC 573; and (iii) whether the appellant can be non-suited for not including all the joint family properties in the common hotchpot. Notice was issued to the respondents for final disposal at the admission stage, the record was called for, and the matter was listed for final hearing on 10.12.2025. On Civil Application No.3333 of 2014, the Court held that the cause of action survives against the heirs of the deceased respondent No.9 (Manikrao Muthal) despite service, allowed the application in terms of prayer clauses 'A' and 'B' (condoning the delay in bringing the legal heirs on record) and directed that the necessary amendment be carried out.

36-SA.220-14+1.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

36 SECOND APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2014

NARAYAN AMBADAS MUTHAL VERSUS

VITTHAL AMBADAS MUTHAL AND OTHERS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3333 OF 2014 IN SA/220/2014

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Salunke V. D.

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 04.11.2025

PER COURT :-

Heard learned counsel Mr. Salunke for the appellant.

Present second appeal is arising out of concurrent findings of facts in non-suiting the appellant/original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.118 of 2004 for partition and separate possession. The suit is contested on plea of oral partition in the year 1990 which is reflected from mutation entry No.67. The respondents/defendants did not lead oral evidence despite opportunity.

Appellant’s suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. While confirming the decree, the Lower Appellate Court recorded findings in respect of mutation entry and oral partition in

36-SA.220-14+1.odt

2

favour of the appellant. Under these circumstances, following substantial questions of law are involved in second appeal :

(i) Whether concurrent findings of facts recorded by both Courts below are sustainable for want of evidence to show oral partition in the year 1990 ?

(ii) What is probative value of the mutation entry No.67 which is not corroborated by any oral evidence by the defendants and why adverse inference be not drawn for not leading the evidence in view of Vidyadhar Vs. Manik [(1990) 3 SCC 573] ?

(iii) Whether appellant can be non-suited for not including all the joint family properties in common hotchpot, more particularly, when there is no oral evidence led by the defendants ?

Issue notice to the respondents for final disposal at the admission stage as the appeal is of 2014. This Court shall decide it finally on the next date.

Call for Record and Proceedings from the concerned Court.

36-SA.220-14+1.odt

3

Appellant is permitted to place on record relevant documents as well as paper book.

List this matter on 10.12.2025 for final hearing at the admission stage.

Civil Application No.3333 of 2014

Applicant seeks to condone the delay in bringing legal

heirs of respondent No.9 Manikrao Muthal on record. Despite service on the proposed heirs, none appears. The cause of action survives against heirs of deceased respondent.

Civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses “A” and “B”.

Necessary amendment shall be carried out.

(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

vmk/-