Bombay High Court
Shrirang Sadhu Marathe vs Ramchandra Sadhu Marathe And Ors on 14 January, 2021
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
9-sa-781-2019 with cas-315-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.781 OF 2019
Shrirang Sadhu Marathe ..Appellant
V/s.
Ramchandra Sadhu Marathe & Ors. ..Respondents
----
Mr.Machhindra A. Patil for the Appellant.
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
Digitally signed
Nilam by Nilam Kamble
Kamble Date: 2021.01.14
16:57:13 +0530
DATE : 14th JANUARY 2021
P.C.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The respondent No.1 (Original Plaintiff) filed a suit for
partition, separate possession and means profits etc., against the
appellant and others.
3. The appellant happens to be the original Defendant
No.2 and the real brother of the respondent No.1. There were
several agricultural and other properties apart from certain movable
properties which were subject matter of the suit. The Trial Court
N.S. Kamble page 1 of 3
9-sa-781-2019 with cas-315-2015
decreed the suit which has been confirmed by the First Appellate
Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken me
through the finding recorded by the Trial Court as well as First
Appellate Court and the evidence on record in order to point out
that the finding recorded are divergent although ultimately the
decree passed by the Trial Court has been confirmed by the First
Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the appellant on
instructions states that the dispute in the present appeal is only
pertaining to the Agricultural Land Gut No.1704 and 1705 which
according to the appellant are the self acquired properties.
5. The learned counsel has pointed out that the Trial Court
has observed that no Sale Deeds were placed on record which it is
contrary to the fact that the Sale Deeds indeed were placed on
record as has been noticed by the First Appellate Court. The learned
counsel points out that the respondent No.1-(Plaintiff) has admitted
in the cross-examination that the appellant was doing the business
of Trading of Cattles and Gut No.1704 and 1705 were purchased by
the appellant from out of his earning from the said business, in the
year 1971. He therefore submits that the Courts below were in error
N.S. Kamble page 2 of 3
9-sa-781-2019 with cas-315-2015
in holding that the properties Gut No.1704 ad 1705 are the
Ancestral/Joint Hindu Family properties.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
having perused record, the appeal is admitted on the following
substantial questions of law.
(a) Whether Courts below were in error in holding
that the suit properties being Gut No.1704 and 1705 are
the Ancestral/Hindu Undivided Family properties ?
(b) Whether the finding so recorded is perverse being
against weight of the oral and documentary evidence on
record ?
(c) Whether the impugned judgment and decree to
the extent of granting partition in respect of the land
Gut No.1704 and 1705 deserves to be set aside ?
C.V. BHADANG, J.
N.S. Kamble page 3 of 3
