Bombay High Court
Shantabai Manikrao Mantale And ... vs Laxmibai Manikrao Mantale Died ... on 20 October, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 25-SA.92-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
25 SECOND APPEAL NO.92 OF 2023
SHANTABAI MANIKRAO MANTALE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
LAXMIBAI MANIKRAO MANTALE DIED MADHAVRAO
MANIKRAO MANTALE AND ORS.
...
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. B. N. Patil a/w Mr. Rodge K. P.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 20.10.2023
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. The second wife and child born from the second
marriage had filed a suit for partition and separate possession.
The Trial Court has held that plaintiff No.2, who was the
daughter from the second wife was a legal heir of deceased
Manik and she has share in the suit property. However, the
learned Trial Court based upon the pleadings of the appellant
Shantabai in Regular Civil Suit No.85 of 1990 that the
properties were partitioned 10 to 12 years back, held that the
principle of "estoppel' operates in the suit. On the basis of
these finding, the suit for partition was dismissed. Further, the
learned Trial Court held that the plaintiffs learnt about the fact
2 25-SA.92-23.odt
of effective partition in 1990 itself. Therefore, the suit was
barred by limitation as was not filed within 12 years from the
date of their knowledge.
3. The Judgment and decree of the Trial Court was assailed
in Regular Civil Appeal No.10 of 2016. Learned First Appellate
Court confirmed the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently
argued that the findings recorded by both Courts on the factum
of earlier partition of the year 1980 are perverse and no
doctrine of estoppel was operating in the suit. The Courts have
erroneously held that the suit is barred by limitation. He has
referred to the impugned Judgments and decrees.
5. He has relied upon the case of Revana Siddappa and
another Vs. Mallikarjun and others; (2011) 11 Supreme Court
Cases 1. In this case, the issue was referred to the Larger
Bench, which has now been recently answered by the Supreme
Court.
6. Considering the facts of the case and the reasons
recorded by the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court, the following substantial questions of law are
formulated.
3 25-SA.92-23.odt
(i) Whether the ratio laid down by the Supreme
Court in case of Revana Siddappa and another Vs.
Mallikarjun and others; (2011) 11 Supreme Court
Cases 1 has any effect on the facts and circumstances
of the case ?
(ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by
limitation ?
(iii) Whether the doctrine of estoppel was running
against the plaintiffs ?
7. Admit.
8. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on
15.01.2024.
9. Call R and P.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
