Vijayalaxmi Nirmaleshwar ... vs Sanjay Mahatgauda Patil
2023 Latest Caselaw 8344 Bom

                                                 12 SA 492.23 with IAst 22051.23.doc


 Dusane

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
              SECOND APPEAL NO.492 OF 2023


 Vijayalaxmi Nirmaleshwar Umardand ...Appellant

         V/s.
 Sanjay Mahatgauda Patil                          ...Respondent


 Mr. Rahul B. Vijaymane for Appellant.
 Mr. Shivraj Kunchge for Respondent No.1.

                                CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATE: 17th August 2023

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Rahul Vijaymane, learned Counsel appearing for

the Appellant and Mr. Shivraj Kunchge, learned Counsel

appearing for the Respondent No.1.

2. The suit was filed by the Appellant seeking partition. The

suit was dismissed. The counter-claim filed by Defendant No.1

i.e. the present Respondent No.1 has been allowed and the

Plaintiff has been directed to handover the vacant possession to

the Respondent No.1. Both the Courts have recorded a finding

that there is no reference in the Will in respect of any particular

share given to any particular family members other than two

brothers i.e. Sanjay and Basavraj.

12 SA 492.23 with IAst 22051.23.doc

3. It is the submission of Mr. Vijaymane, learned Counsel

appearing for the Appellant that the suit property is purchased

by deceased father Mahantgonda for the benefit of the entire

family and therefore the same cannot be held as the exclusive

property of the Respondent No. 1- Sanjay.

4. For appreciating the substantial question of law raised by

the Appellant, it is necessary to set out genealogy of the family.

The same is on page 63 of the Interim Application, and

reproduced as under:

egkarxkSMk cluxkSMk ikVhy ¼Lor%½

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

lkS- ikoZrhckbZ egkrxkSMk ikVhy ¼iRuh½ lkS- foeykckbZ egkarxkSMk ikVhy ¼iRuh½

1½ Jherh fot;ky{eh ¼eqyxh½ fookghr 1½ lkS- lqfurk ¼eqyxh½ fookghr 2½ lat; ¼eqyxk½ fookghr ¼iwoZ½ 2½ clojkt ¼eqyxk½ fookghr ¼if'pe½ 3½ lkS- t;Jh ¼eqyxh½ fookghr 3½ lkS- lqtkrk ¼eqyxh½ fookghr 4½ lkS- jktJh ¼eqyxh½ fookghr 4½ lkS- lafxrk ¼eqyxh½ fookghr 5½ larks"k ¼eqyxk½ vfookghr

It is admitted position that the Plaintiff- Vijayalaxmi is in

joint possession with Sanjay i.e. Defendant No. 1.

5. Clause No. 3 of the Will dated 7 th May 2008 of deceased-

Mahantgauda Patil specifically states that the property is

purchased by deceased Mahantgonda in the name of Respondent

No.1 for making arrangement of residence for the first wife-

12 SA 492.23 with IAst 22051.23.doc

Parvatibai as well as for her children. The said clause No. 3

reads as under:

ßLFkkoj feGdrhckcr &

ftYgk lksykiwj]rkyqdk 'kgj vDdydksV ;sFkhy fl-l-ua- 2742 v@33@44

{ks= 224-64 pkS-eh- ;kojhy rnaxHkwr oLrw vlysyh LFkkoj feGdr-

oj uewn feGdr ekÖ;k nksugh iRuhauk Hkfo";kr jkg.;klkBh dk;epk vkljk

vlkok ;k gsrwus eh Lor% iRuh lkS- ikoZrhckbZ dfjrk lat; ;kaps ukos rj lkS-

foeykckbZ dfjrk clojkt ;kaps ukos rs nks?ks vKku vlrkauk fn-

25@02@1974 jksth [kjsnh ?ksrys vkgs - ;k feGdrhr 112-32 vkf.k

112-32 pkS-eh- ps nksu Hkkx dsysys vkgsr- if'pesdMhy Hkkxkr Jh-

clojkt ;kps okV;kl vkysY;k feGdrhr iRuh lkS- foeykckbZ o frph eqys

jkgrkr rj iwoZsdMhy Hkkx fp- lat; ;kps okV;kl vkyh vlwu ;k Hkkxkr

iRuh lkS- ikoZrhckbZ o frph eqys jgkr vlrkr- eh nks?khdMs ;sr tkr vlrks-

v'kk izdkjs eh ek>;k nksugh iRuh o R;kaps viR;kdfjr jgk.;klkBh LFkkoj

feGdrhph O;oLFkk dsysyh vkgs- vfydMs Eg.kts fn- 29@12@2006 jksth

fp- clojkt ;kauh lnj R;kaps okV;kl fnysyh feGdr ek>h eqyxh lkS-

lqfurk eukst Vks.ks ghl fodzh dsyh vkgs ;k dkj.kkeqGs Hkfo";kr iRuh lkS-

ikoZrhckbZ vxj eqyxk lat; vkf.k brj eqykauh ;k R;kaps okV;kl fnysyk

feGdrhckcr dks.khgh okn] gjdr mifLFkr d#u =kl ns.;kpk iz;Ru d:

u;s-Þ

(Emphasis added)

6. Both the Courts have held that the portion of the house

standing on the property admeasuring 112.32 sq. mtrs. was

allotted to Defendant No. 1 exclusively and no share is given to

12 SA 492.23 with IAst 22051.23.doc

the other family members. However, the contents of the Will

supports the contention of the Appellant.

7. The Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial

questions of law:

(i) Whether the impugned judgment and decrees of both the Courts are passed by misreading the contents of Will dated 7th May 2008 particularly Clause No.3 ?

(ii) Whether the suit property i.e. half portion of house admeasuring 112.32 sq. mtr. standing on City Survey No. 2742/A/33/4 is the absolute property of Respondent No. 1- Sanjay ?

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)