Bombay High Court
Uma Madhav Agaskar vs Smt. Manorama Motiram Dandekar And Ors on 30 November, 2023
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2023:BHC-AS:35475
21-sa562-2022.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.562 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17049 OF 2022
Uma Madhav Agaskar ... Appellant
V/s.
Manorama Motiram Dandekar & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Sachin P. Shetye for the appellant.
Mr. Drupad S. Patil for the respondents.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 30, 2023
P.C.:
1. The appellant is original plaintiff who filed Regular Civil Suit
No.732 of 2012 seeking declaration, partition and injunction. Both
the Courts below dismissed the suit recording a finding that the
plaintiff relinquished her share before the City Survey Officer.
2. The plaintiff filed suit claiming share in the properties
described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. According to her, defendant
Nos.1 to 3 got her signatures on the blank papers stating that such
signatures are necessary for making entries in the revenue record.
Believing the words of defendant Nos.1 to 3, she signed blank
papers. However, thereafter when she claimed rights over the suit
properties, the defendants informed her that she had relinquished
her share and, therefore, she filed suit for partition and separate
possession.
21-sa562-2022.doc
3. The defendants contested the suit contending that after the
death of common ancestor Motiram on 13 January 1982, the
plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 were entitled to share of
deceased Motiram. Defendant No.2 filed an application before the
City Survey Officer to enter names of the heirs and legal
representatives in the city survey record. The plaintiff voluntarily
relinquished her share in the suit properties in favour of defendant
Nos.1 to 3. Statement to that effect was recorded by the City
Survey Officer in the year 1983. Parties acted in furtherance of
such relinquishment. The suit was filed in the year 2008.
4. The Courts below recorded a finding that the documents
below Exhibits 103 and 105 which are the record produced by a
public officer in discharge of official duty and are public
documents, indicates that the plaintiff stated before the City
Survey Officer that she was given her due by her father during his
lifetime and, therefore, she is not concerned with the suit
properties. It is stated that, therefore, she has no objection to
transfer properties in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3.
5. The plaintiff appears to have signed the said statement
before the City Survey Officer on 14 March 1983. The said
document is at Exhibit 103. Exhibit 105 is also similar statement
made by the plaintiff stating that both the sisters are residing in
their matrimonial home and they are releasing their share in
favour of both brothers. They stated before the City Survey Officer
that their names may not be entered in in the city survey record.
6. Both the Courts below recorded a finding that the plaintiff
21-sa562-2022.doc
admitted in the cross-examination that she signed on the blank
papers. Once the signature on the statement is admitted, it is for
the plaintiff to prove by adducing reliable evidence and by giving
details as required under Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 about misrepresentation, undue influence or
fraud, if any. In the absence of such pleadings, the Courts below
have rightly placed reliance upon the statements recorded in
documents below Exhibits 103 and 105. Therefore, the finding of
fact recorded by the Courts below that plaintiff relinquished her
share orally before the City Survey Officer need not be interfered.
7. In so far as the submission of the learned advocate for the
appellant that such oral relinquishment is not permission as such
relinquishment requires registered document is concerned, the
issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in Ramdas Chimna v. Pralhad Deorao & Ors. reported in AIR
1965 Bombay 74. This Court held that relinquishment by a female
of her interest in the joint family property was merely
abandonment of her interest in the joint family property, even
though it consists of immovable properties and is of value of
Rs.100/- onward can be effected without written instrument. It is
only if such relinquishment is evidenced by a written document,
such document would require registration.
8. Therefore, in my opinion, the Courts below rightly relied on
the oral relinquishment by the plaintiff of her share in the suit
properties. The finding of fact recorded by the Courts below are
based on evidence on record.
21-sa562-2022.doc
9. No substantial question of law is involved in the present
second appeal. The second appeal is dismissed. No costs.
10. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, all pending
interlocutory applications stand disposed of as infructuous.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
