Bombay High Court
Shri Kawadu S/O Zitru Randive vs Shri Kawadu S/O Jairam Jambhule on 1 February, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:1343
1 6 sa170.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2022
KAWADU S/o ZITRU RANDIVE
VERSUS
KAWADU S/o JAIRAM JAMBHULE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. G. G. Bade, Advocate for the appellant.
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 01, 2024.
1. Heard Mr. G. G. Bade, learned advocate for the
appellant. Perused the record and proceedings.
2. Mr. Bade, learned advocate for the appellant
submitted that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts
below are perverse inasmuch as the Courts below have
failed to consider the evidence on record as well as
applicability of Section 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956").
3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that
after death of Bayanabai, the property ought to have
reverted, as provided under Section 15 of the Act of 1956,
to the heirs of Zitru, who was the brother of Vithu, the
husband of Bayanabai. Learned advocate submitted that
the Will Deed executed by Bayanabai during her life time
was not legal and valid. It is submitted that the Will Deed
2 6 sa170.22.odt
was also not properly proved.
4. Deceased Zitru and Vithu were the bothers. There
was partition of the ancestral property between them. After
death of the first wife of Vithu, he got married with
Bayanabai. After death of Vithu, Bayanabai inherited his
property. As Vithu was the owner of the property,
Bayanabai became the absolute owner of the property.
Bayanabai, during her life time, executed a Will Deed in
favour of the respondent, who is the foster son of Vithu.
5. The parties have adduced evidence before learned
Trial Court. The trial Court accepted the contention of the
respondent that Bayanabai had a right, being an absolute
owner, to execute the Will Deed of the property in favour of
the respondent. The Will Deed was proved. The trial
Court, in view of certain proved facts, recorded a finding
that in this case, Section 14 would apply and not Section 15
of the Act of 1956. The trial Court held that deceased
Bayanabai was the absolute owner of the property and
therefore, she had a right to execute a Will or dispose of the
property according to her wish and desire. The trial Court
rejected the contention of the appellant that deceased
Bayanabai was not the absolute owner of the property and
as such the case would be governed by Section 15 of the Act
of 1956.
3 6 sa170.22.odt
6. The first Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the
evidence, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court. The first Appellate Court has held that
deceased Bayanabai became the absolute owner of the
property after death of Vithu and as such, she had a right to
dispose it off. The first Appellate Court has held that the
dispute between the parties would be governed by Section
14 and not by Section 15 of the Act of 1956.
7. On going through the record and proceedings, I am
satisfied that there is no perversity in the findings of fact
recorded by the Courts below. The Will Deed was
registered. The Will Deed was proved on the basis of the
available evidence. It is undisputed that Vithu got the suit
property in partition with his brother Zitru. In view of this
admitted factual position, I am of the view that no
substantial question of law arises in this appeal. As such
the appeal stands dismissed at admission stage. No order as
to costs.
JUDGE
Diwale
Signed by: DIWALE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/02/2024 17:50:11
