Bombay High Court
Anusaya Kashinath Ushir And Ors vs Bhausaheb Karbhari Khandode And ... on 22 February, 2023
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
915-sa-14-2022.doc
Pallavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PALLAVI
Digitally signed
by PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WARGAONKAR
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR Date:
2023.02.23
SECOND APPEAL NO.14 OF 2022
18:29:24
+0530
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1180 OF 2019
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.14 OF 2022
Anusaya Kashinath Ushir and Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Bhausaheb Karbhari Khandode and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Vikram N. Walawalkar a/w Mr. Amey C. Sawant and Mr.
Virendrasinh V. Tapkir i/b. Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad, for the Appellants/
Applicants.
Ms. Pranita P. Hingmire for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Drupad Patil a/w Mr. Ankur Kalal i/b. M/s. Markand Gandhi &
Co., for Respondent No.10.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 22nd FEBRUARY 2023
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr. Walawalkar, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellants, Mr. Drupad Patil, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.10 and Ms. Pranita Hingmire, learned counsel for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Learned Single Judge on 22nd April 2022, passed the following
order:-
915-sa-14-2022.doc
Pallavi
"1. The learned counsel Mr. Sabrad is perfectly justified in
submitting that in the wake of the latest authoritative
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
conferment of coparcenary status upon the daughters under
the Indian Succession Act, the determination of the shares
of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 is incorrect.
2. Instead of keeping the appeal pending, it would be
advisable that the appeal is disposed off at the stage of
admission itself in the light of the decision in the case of
Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. [(2020) 9 SCC
1]. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are represented, but in absence
of other coparceners, the matter is required to be
adjourned. Mr. Patil represents respondent No.10, who is
the subsequent purchaser and he may not have say in the
appeal.
3. List the appeal on 27/06/2022.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants shall intimate the
respondents about the next date of hearing."
3. This Second Appeal was heard on 6th February 2023. In view of
the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision of Vineeta
Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors.1, it is clear that the shares as
determined by both the learned Trial Court and the learned First
Appellate Court are required to be modified. Therefore, following
1. (2020) 9 SCC 1
915-sa-14-2022.doc
Pallavi
substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal:-
"Whether the shares allotted by the learned Trial Court as
confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court are proper in
the light of the decision in the case of Vineeta Sharma
(supra)?"
4. It is admitted position that the shares as determined by the
learned Trial Court and as confirmed by the learned First Appellate
Court are not in accordance with the law laid down in the case of
Vineeta Sharma (supra) and therefore, it was agreed by all the learned
counsel who were appearing for contesting parties that the same
requires modification.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties i.e.
Appellant, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Respondent No.10 have
submitted the Minutes of Order to modify the shares in accordance with
the law laid down in Vineeta Sharma (supra). The said "Minutes of
Order" are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The said
minutes read as under:-
"Minutes of Order
1. After due service of notice to all parties in the present
Second Appeal, the parties present before this Court have
no objection if the present Second Appeal is disposed of in
915-sa-14-2022.doc
Pallavi
terms of these Minutes of Order. The Respondent Nos. 4 to
9, though served in the above Second Appeal have chosen
not to appear, the Respondent No. 11 is deleted as her legal
heirs viz.Appellant Nos.5 to 7 and Respondent Nos.1 to 3
are already on record and whereas the Respondent N0.12-
B.P.C.Ltd., is only formal party.
2. The Second Appeal is filed on 15.07.2019 and the same is
pending admission. In the meantime the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down law in Vineeta Sharma V/s. Rakesh
Sharma & Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1, whereby it is
held that the daughters are also entitled for equal shares. In
view of the aforesaid Judgment of this Hon'ble Court vide
its Order dated 22.04.2022, directed that the above Second
Appeal is to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
3. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2016
passed by Ld. Civil Judge Senior Division, Niphad in Special
Civil Suit No. 155 of 2009, confirmed by Ld. District Judge-
1, Nashik vide Judgment and Order dated 28.3.2019 in
Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2017, is modified by consent of
parties. The parties are referred by their original
nomenclature in the suit. The said Decree is modified as
under;
a) Special Civil Suit No. 155 of 2009 is partly decreed.
915-sa-14-2022.doc
Pallavi
b) It is hereby declared that Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 shall
have 1/12th share each and Defendant Nos. 5 to 8 shall have
1/48th share each in suit properties mentioned in Para Nos. 1(A)
and 1(B) (1) and 1(B) (4).
c) Partition of Agricultural lands mentioned in para Nos. 1(A) of the
plaint shall be effected by Collector as per Section 54 of Code of
Civil Procedure and as per provisions of Maharashtra Prevention
of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act.
d) Partition of House properties mentioned in para Nos. 1(B) (1) and
1(B) (4) of the Plaint be effected by appointing commissioner.
Preliminary decree be drawn.
e) Prayer for mesne profits is rejected.
f) It is hereby declared that Will dated 20.6.2000 made by Karbhari
in favour of Defendant No. 9 is not binding on Plaintiffs.
g) Prayer for declaration that Sale Deed dated 15.7.2000 made by
Karbhari in favour of Defendant No. 10 is not binding on
Plaintiffs, is rejected and the said Sale Deed is declared as legal,
valid, subsisting and binding on Plaintiffs and Defendants.
h) Prayer for perpetual injunction is rejected.
i) Parties to bear their own cost.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the above Second Appeal stands disposed
of.
915-sa-14-2022.doc
Pallavi
5. No order as to costs."
6. Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of minutes of order with no
order as to costs.
7. In view of disposal of Second Appeal, nothing survives in the Civil
Application and the same is also disposed of.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
