Popat Pandurang Madane And Others vs Sakhubai Jagu Bodare (D/H) And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4925 Bom

                                          22-SA-219-2019.odt


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            SECOND APPEAL NO.219 OF 2019
                          WITH
           CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1918 OF 2016
                          WITH
            CIVIL APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2015

1) Popat Pandurang Madane
Age-54 yrs., Occ: Agriculture,
2) Narayan Pandurang Madane,
Age: 54 yrs., Occ: Agriculture,
3)Kisan Pandurang Madane,
Age: 50 yrs., Occ: Agriculture,
4) Pralhad Pandurang Madane
Age: 50 yrs., Occ: Agriculture,
All R/o Kanher, Tal: Malshiras,
Dist. Solapur                       ... Appellants

          Vs

1) Sakhubai Jagu Bodare
S/D Through her L.R.s:

1A) Bhanudas Jagu Bodare,
Age-59 yrs., Occ: Agriculture,
1B) Muralidhar Jagu Bodare
Age: 57 yrs., Occ: Agriculture,
1C) Kalawati Jagu Bodare,
Age: 64 yrs., Occ: Household,
1D) Lochana Rama Chavan,
Age: 62 yrs., Occ: Household,
All R/o Mandave, Tal: Malshiras
Dist. Solapur



Shivgan                                                1/5
                                                 22-SA-219-2019.odt

2) Madhukar Pandurang Madane,
Age: 46 yrs., Occ: Agriculture,
3) Shamrao Pandurang Madane,
Age: 44 yrs., Occ: Agriculture,

4) Eknath Jagu Shinde,
Age: 54 yrs., Occ: Agriculture
5) Ananda Jagu Shinde,
Age; 54 yrs., Occ: Agriculture
All R/o. Paryanti, Tal: Man,
Dist. Satara                          ... Respondents
                             ...

Mr. Vishwanath S. Talkute for the Appellants.

Mr. Laxman K. Kalel for the Respondent Nos.1A to 1D.

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

DATE : 18th MARCH, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Sakhubai Jagu Bodare instituted the Regular

Civil Suit No.128 of 2003 for partition. Pending suit,

Sakhubai died. Her legal representatives are Respondent

Nos.1A to 1D in this appeal. The suit was decreed on 26 th

February, 2007. The decree was confrmed in Regular Civil

Appeal No.253 of 2010. It is against the decree in the

Appeal, defendant nos. 8 to 11 have preferred the Second

Shivgan 2/5 22-SA-219-2019.odt

Appeal.

FACTS:

2 Savla Madane was common ancestor. He died in

1948. He was survived by widow Radhabai, Pandurang

(Son) and Sakhubai (Daughter). After Savla's death, suit

property was devolved on Radhabai and Pandurang.

Radhabai died in 1972. Sakhubai is claiming half share in

the property of her mother, Radhabai. It appears,

Pandurang's wife, Parubai had fled suit for partition being

Regular Civil Suit No.209 of 1992 to which Sakhubai was not

a party. The said suit was decreed on 15 th October, 1993.

Sakhubai instituted the suit in February, 2003. It may be

stated that suit properties in the present suit were, also the

suit properties, in the suit instituted by Parubai Madane.

3 Mr. Talkute, learned counsel for the appellants

disputed, 'the date of death', of Savla. He submitted that

Shivgan 3/5 22-SA-219-2019.odt

Savla died before 1937 and not in 1948. Nevertheless, as to

how and why 'death day', of Savla is relevant, has not been

argued. Herein, Plaintif (Sakhubai) is claiming right in the

suit property through her mother Radhabai. As stated

above, Radhabai, died in 1972, who had 50% share in the

suit property. Thus, in consideration of these facts, in my

view, date of Savla's death, is immaterial in as much as, in

terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,

character of the properties possessed by Radhabai (Wife of

Savla) would be, her absolute property. The next submission

is that in a suit instituted by Parubai (Wife of Pandurang,

and brother of Sakhubai), shares, were determined and

some of the sharers disposed of their shares. Submission is

that, suit properties in the suits instituted by Parubai and

Sakhubai are same and sharers are common. It is,

therefore, submitted that sharers, who have disposed of

their shares received in the suit instituted by Parubai, would

be benefted twice and would also reduce the share of other

family members who have not transferred their shares,

Shivgan 4/5 22-SA-219-2019.odt

therefore, while determining shares in the present suit,

appropriate adjustments in the shares be directed.

4 It may be stated that particulars of execution of

partition efected in the Suit No.290 of 1992 are not before

this Court nor particulars of shares allegedly disposed of by

the co-sharers and to whom shares were transferred, are

also not placed before this Court. In view of this fact, the

contention of Mr. Talkute cannot be accepted.

5 In consideration of the facts of the case and for

the reasons stated, appeal does not give rise to any

substantial question of law. Appeal is dismissed. All civil

applications therein are also disposed of.

                                (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)




Shivgan                                                      5/5