Dismissed¶33

Mahadibai Hasha Patil Deceased v. Lilabai Ambaji Patil

Bombay HC10 Jun 2026SA/239/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed; Section 100 CPC; no substantial question of law; concurrent findings of fact not open to interference; joint family property; declaration and perpetual injunction; onus shifting after defendant's evidence; plaintiff's burden to prove joint family character; 1/6th share claimed; 1/4th share decreed in Survey Nos. 62/2 and 86/6; mutation in record of rights; Regular Civil Suit No. 169/1947 (Krishna Keni v. Husain Kacchi, redemption of mortgage) referred in submissions; District Judge Panvel; Regular Civil Appeal No. 556/2019; Special Civil Suit No. 93/2004; Interim Application No. 3485 of 2026 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None. The Second Appeal stands dismissed; consequently Interim Application No. 3485 of 2026 also stands dismissed (paras 33-35). ¶33

Mahadibai Hasha Patil Deceased vs Lilabai Ambaji Patil — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The Second Appeal stands dismissed; consequently Interim Application No. 3485 of 2026 also stands dismissed (paras 33-35).

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below - that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the balance 20 properties were joint family properties - could be interfered with in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence to substantiate their primary case that the balance 20 properties were joint family properties; irrespective of the evidence adduced by the defendants, it was for the plaintiffs to establish that the properties sought to be declared were joint family properties.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The concurrent findings of fact returned on appreciation of evidence - that the plaintiffs failed to prove the said 20 properties were joint family properties - are not open to interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶8

Key takeaways

No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), N. J. Jamadar, J. (Oral Order, 10 June 2026), Second Appeal No. 239 of 2026 with Interim Application No. 3485 of 2026: Dismissed. The Second Appeal challenged the judgment and decree dated 10th January, 2025 of the learned District Judge, Panvel in Regular Civil Appeal No. 556/2019, whereby the appellants'/original plaintiffs' appeal against the decree in Special Civil Suit No. 93/2004 was dismissed. The suit sought declaration and perpetual injunction regarding 22 immovable properties allegedly held in the name of Krishna Keni @ Shankar Keni as manager of the joint family, the plaintiffs claiming 1/6th share; the trial Court decreed only a 1/4th share in Survey Nos. 62/2 and 86/6, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish the remaining 20 properties as joint family properties. Held: after the defendants led evidence, the onus shifted on the plaintiffs, who failed to adduce evidence to substantiate that the balance 20 properties were joint family properties; the concurrent findings of fact are not open to interference in appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; no substantial question of law arises; Second Appeal and Interim Application dismissed.

¶1

4 SA 239-26.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2026

¶4

Mahadibai Hasha Patil Since decd. Through LR’s & ors. Versus

¶5

..Appellants

¶6

Lilabai Ambaji Patil & ors. …Respondents

¶7

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3485 OF 2026

¶8

¶9

SECOND APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2026

¶10

Mr. Rahul Thakur, for the Appellant.

¶11

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 10^th JUNE 2026

¶12

ORAL ORDER:

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.

¶14

This Second Appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 10^th January, 2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Panvel in Regular Civil Appeal No. 556/2019 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants/original plaintiffs against a judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No. 93/2004, came to be dismissed.

¶15

The appellant had instituted the said suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The case of the appellants was that, there were in all 22 immovable properties which stood in the

1/4

SAINATH, PA

4 SA 239-26.DOC

name of Krishna Keni @ Shankar Keni as a manager of the joint family. The plaintiffs had 1/6th share in all the suit properties.

¶20

The learned Civil Judge, was not persuaded to accede to the case of the plaintiffs. It was found that, the plaintiffs had ¼^th share in two of the properties, namely Survey Nos. 62/2 and 86/6, only. The names of the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs were mutated to the record of rights of the aforesaid properties. The plaintiffs failed to establish that, the rest of the properties were the joint family properties. Thus, the suit came to be partly decreed.

¶21

Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 556/2019 before the District Court. The learned District Judge found no reason to interfere with the decree passed by the trial Court.

¶22

Mr. Thakur, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, though the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of facts, yet, the trial Court had committed an error in returning the finding that, Krishna Keni @ Shankar Keni, was the exclusive owner of 20 immovable properties on the basis of a decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 169/1947 which was instituted by late Krishna Keni, against Husain Kacchi, for redemption of mortgage. The learned District Judge

2/4

SAINATH, PA

4 SA 239-26.DOC

was also in error in not correcting the mistake committed by the trial Court and mechanically affirming the said finding.

¶27

From a perusal of the impugned judgment, it becomes evident that, the learned District Judge has recorded a categorical finding that after the defendants led the evidence onus shifted upon the plaintiffs to prove that the rest of the 20 properties were the joint family properties and the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence, in proof of the said fact.

¶28

The material on record indicates that, the plaintiffs had failed to adduce evidence to substantiate their primary case that the balance 20 properties were also the joint family properties. Irrespective of the evidence adduced by the defendants, it was for the plaintiffs to establish that the properties, in respect of which they were seeking a declaration, were the joint family properties. As the courts below on the basis of appreciation of evidence, have returned the findings of fact that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the said 20 properties were joint family properties, such findings of fact are not open for interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under the regime of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶29