Arun Nagnath Kulkarni And Others vs Ramchandra Pandharinath ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2702 Bom

                                                                            66.SA.413.92.odt


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             SECOND APPEAL NO.413 OF 1992

                 ARUN NAGNATH KULKARNI and OTHERS.
                             VERSUS
            RAMCHANDRA PANDHARINATH KULKARNI and OTHERS.

                                      ...
           Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Kadam h/f. Mr. K.B. Bhise
     Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Shomit Salunke h/f. Mr. S.S. Choudhari
                                       ...

                                    CORAM   :   MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                                    DATE    :   21.03.2022
PER COURT :

Learned advocate Mr. Kadam holding for Mr. Bhise for the

appellant seeks time.

2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs who had succeeded in

having a decree for partition and separate possession in respect of both the

suit properties Survey No.202 and 203 with a declaration that the sale deed

dated 29.10.1968 executed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the

respondent No.3 was null and vide and was not binding on their share. The

lower appellate court allowed the respondent No.2's appeal partly. It

confirmed the judgment and decree to the extent of granting the share to

the appellants in suit property survey No.202, however, held that they were

not entitled to take exception to the sale deed dated 29.10.1968 and did not

allot any share therein.

3. As can be seen the respondent No.2 who was the defendant

66.SA.413.92.odt

No.2 and the sole appellant before the lower appellate court has died long

back and the Second Appeal stood disposed of as abated as against him by

the order dated 18.03.2015.

4. As is mentioned in the Second Appeal memo the original

defendant No.3 Nagnath Pandharinath Kulkarni was already dead even

before the Second Appeal was filed. The sale deed was executed in his

favour. His legal heirs are also not on the record.

5. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the

appeal cannot survive against the surviving respondents namely respondent

Nos.1 and 4 alone. It is dismissed in entirety.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

habeeb