Bombay High Court
Tukaram H.Jadhav(Died)Lrs Ananda ... vs Kundlik Maroti Jadhav And Others on 4 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:27705
1 sa 821.99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 821 OF 1999
1. Tukaram s/o Harji Jadhav,
(died) per L.Rs:-
(a) Ananda Tukaram Jadhav,
Since deceased through L.Rs.
1-a-a Gangadhar s/o Anandrao Jadhav,
Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Kadati, Tq. and Dist. Hingoli.
(b) Balubai w/o Mahadji Thorat,
Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o Sawad, Taluka Hingoli,
District Parbhani.
(c) Kalabai w/o Vithal Dange,
Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o Vaijapur, Tal. Hingoli,
District Parbhani.
(d) Vatchalabai W/o Dharuji Gulakhe,
Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o Amla, Taluka, Hingoli,
District Parbhani.
(e) Prayagbai W/o Yeshwanta Bhopale,
Age : 25 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o Changephal, Tq. Hingoli,
District Parbhani.
2. Jayaji s/o Harji Jadhav,
Since deceased on 14.03.1999
per L.Rs :-
2 sa 821.99
(a) Kedarling S/o Jayaji Jadhav,
Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Kadati, Taluka Hingoli,
Dist. Parbhani.
(b) Sadashiv s/o Jayaji Jadhav,
Age : 27 Years, Occu. & r/o same.
(c) Thakubai w/o Jayaji,
Age : 61 years, Occu. : & r/o as above
As per pursis dt. 06.02.2025 she is
dead and her L.Rs. are already on
record.
(d) Shivkantabai W/o Baban Ingole,
Age : 30 Years, Occu. Household,
R/o Jawla (Bk), Tq. Sengaon,
Dist. Parbhani.
(e) Leelabai w/o Rameshrao Ingole,
Age : 24 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o as above.
3. Sakharam s/o Laxman Lothe,
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
3/1 Sheshrao S/o Sakharam Lothe,
Age : 58 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Kalkondi, Post Narsi Namdeo,
Taluka and District Hingoli.
3/2 Devrao S/o Sakharam Lothe,
Age : 55 years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Kalkondi, Post Narsi Namdeo,
Taluka and District Hingoli.
3/3 Bhaurao S/o Sakharam Lothe
Age : 52 years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Kalkondi, Post Narsi Namdeo,
3 sa 821.99
Taluka and District Hingoli.
3/4 Lilbai D/o Sakharam Lothe,
Now W/o Chandrakant Gaikwad,
Age : 65 years, Occu. : Housewife.,
R/o Kalkondi, Post Narsi Namdeo,
Taluka and District Hingoli.
3/5 Ujanavati D/o Sakharam Lothe,
Now W/o Baban Gaikwad,
Age : 62 years, Occu. : Housewife.,
R/o Khandala, Post Khandala,
Taluka and District Hingoli.
3/6 Babybai D/o Sakharam Lothe,
Now W/o Vitthal Kadam,
Age : 49 years, Occu. : Housewife,
R/o Ansingh, Post Ansingh
Taluka and District Wasim.
4. Ananda s/o Tukaram Jadhav,
Age : 27 Years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o Kalkondi, Tqluka Hingoli,
Dist. Parbhani. .. Appellants
Versus
1. Kundlik S/o Maroti Jadhav,
Age : 27 Years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o Kadati, Taluka Hingoli,
District Parbhani.
2. Geetabai W/o Shankarrao
(Name of previous husband Gyanu)
Kawarkhe, Age : 40 Years,
Occupation : Agril.,
R/o Goregaon, Tqluka Hingoli,
District Parbhani.
4 sa 821.99
3. Yelabai (died) L.Rs.
Muktabai W/o Ramchandra Ingle,
Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o Sirasam, Taluka Kalamnuri,
District Parbhani. .. Respondents
Shri Vijay P. Latange, Advocate for Appellant Nos. 1/a/a.
Shri A. M. Nagarkar, Advocate fo Appellant No. 2(a) and 2(d).
Shri Pavankumar S. Agrawal, Advocate for the Appellant Nos.
3/1 to 3/6.
Shri B. S. Kudale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.
The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are served.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 12.09.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 04.10.2025
JUDGMENT :
. Heard both sides.
2. Second appeal is arising out of alternate findings of facts to
the extent of land Sy. No. 47, which is the only disputed
property. Trial Court held that land Sy. No. 47 is exclusively
belonging to deceased Gyanu, which devolved upon his widow
Subhadrabai, whereas lower Appellate Court held it to be of joint
family property.
3. The substantial questions of law which fall for
consideration as per order dated 28.04.2003 are as follows :
5 sa 821.99
1. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in holding that
the land Survey No. 47 is joint family property ?
2. Whether the First appellate Court is justified in reversing the
findings that the land Survey No. 47 is self acquired property,
without coming into close scrutiny with the reasons assigned
by the trial Court and without giving reasons for accepting the
said findings of facts recorded by the Trial Court ?
4. Appellants are original defendants. Respondents are
original plaintiffs in R.C.S. No. 112 of 1976. Subhadrabai was
defendant No. 1 in the suit, but she was deleted. The genealogy
to show the relationship is as follows :
Maroti - Yelabai (Plaintiff No. 3)
Gyanu Kundlik
(Plaintiff No. 1)
Geetabai Subhadrabai
(IInd wife) (Ist wife)
5. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify that R.C.S. No. 112
of 1976 was filed in respect of land Sy. Nos. 31/3, 2/E/5, 47/1,
47/2, 94/1 and a house property situated at Kadati for partition/
possession and declaration that the alienations made by the then
defendant No. 1 - Subhdrabai are not binding. Both the Courts
below concurrently held that it was undivided family and decreed
the suit for partition granting shares in land Sy. Nos. 31/3, 2/E/5,
94/1 and house. The whole controversy remains with Sy. No. 47.
6 sa 821.99
6. It is contended by the plaintiffs that suit properties were
undivided joint family properties. Sy. No. 47 was purchased in
the name of Gyanu from Shivdasappa Wani vide sale deed dated
06.09.1952 by the joint family. It was purchased from nucleus of
other properties. Maroti died in the year 1956. Gyanu died in
the year1960, who is survived by two widows Subhadrabai and
Geetabai, but no issues. Subhadrabai alienated Sy. No. 47
illegally to the defendants without any legal necessity. She had
no right to alienate as it was joint family property. The
defendants were illegally enjoying possession of Sy. No. 47. The
shares were denied and suit was required to be filed.
7. Subhadrabai, the then defendant No. 1 filed written
statement contesting the suit mainly on the ground that Sy. No.
47 was self acquired property of her husband Gyanu purchased
on 06.09.1952. The consideration was paid by her mother. Out of
that 1/4th was contributed by the defendant No. 2 - Jayaji. She
was required to alienate part of Sy. No. 47 to defendant No. 1 -
Tukaram on 14.06.1971. Thereafter she was required to alienate
06 Acres 12 Gunthas to defendant No. 3 - Sakharam on
19.06.1976. The purchasers are in possession of the lands and
alienations are valid.
8. The defendant No. 4 submitted written statement on the
same line denying that Sy. No. 47 is joint family property. The
defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also supported Subhadrabai and
7 sa 821.99
reiterated that Jayaji had contributed 1/4th contribution and he
was in possession of 6 Acres since beginning, which was
converted into ownership vide sale deed dated 14.06.1971.
9. Parties placed on record documentary evidence in the form
of revenue record and sale deeds. They adduced oral evidence of
two witnesses on either side. Trial Court partly decreed the suit
vide judgment dated 28.02.1985. Plaintiffs were granted half
share including Geetabai in Sy. No. 31/3, 2/E/5, 94/1 and house.
The suit land Sy. No. 47 was held to be exclusive property of
Gyanu and the alienations by his widow Subhadrabai were held
to be valid.
10. Being aggrieved respondents preferred R.C.A. No. 82 of
1985. By judgment dated 04.03.1999, appeal was allowed partly.
Partition and shares in other properties was confirmed. The
decree in respect of Sy. Nos. 47/1 and 47/2 was reversed holding
that it was joint family property. Plaintiffs were granted 1/3rd
share in Sy. No. 47/1 and 47/2. The sale deeds executed by
Subhadrabai were held to be not binding on the shares allotted to
them. Subhadrabai was held to be entitled to 1/6th share, which
was directed to be allotted to the purchasers.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Agrawal appearing
for appellant Nos. 3/1 to 3/6 submits that both the Courts below
ought to have allotted share to deceased Subhadrabai being
widow. She was entitled to have a share along with plaintiffs. It
8 sa 821.99
is submitted that lower Appellate Court committed grave error of
jurisdiction in holding that Sy. No. 47 is joint family property
when the revenue record, unchallenged mutation entries and the
sale deeds disclose it to be exclusive property of Gyanu. It is
submitted that after demise of Gyanu, Subhadrabai sold Sy. No.
47/2 to Jayaji and Ananda. Thereafter Sy. No. 47/1 to Sakharam
as she was in need of money. It is further submitted that
Kundlik is not entitled to get any share because he was not class
I heir. It is further submitted that Geetabai, plaintiff No. 2 is not
entitled to any share as she was remarried after death of Gyanu.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
matter of Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs.
Tiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki and others reported in (2024) 3 MLJ 107.
12. Learned counsel Mr. Kudale has canvassed submissions on
behalf of the respondent No. 1. Appellant No. 1/A and appellant
Nos. 2(a) to 2(d) adopted his submissions. They submitted that
there was more than 40 Acres of land available with the joint
family, which was sufficient nucleus to purchase Sy. No. 47. As
against that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show
that any independent source of income was available to Gyanu.
It is submitted that the so called financial assistance provided by
mother-in-law of Gyanu was not established. The cross
examination of defendants witness namely Sakharam did not
corroborate the theory of Subhadrabai. It is vehemently
submitted that respondent No. 1 - Kundalik is entitled to have
entire land of Sy. No. 47 because Subhadrabai had no issue and
9 sa 821.99
her share would fall back to Kundalik. It is further contended
that respondent No. 2 Geetabai was entitled to have a share. It
is further submitted that Appellate Court rightly decided the
matter.
13. I have considered rival submissions. I have carefully gone
through original record. Sy. No. 47 admeasuring about 24 acres
was purchased from Shivdasappa Onkardas Wani vide sale deed
dated 06.09.1952 in the name of Gyanu exclusively. Gyanu died
in the year 1960 leaving behind Subhadrabai and Geetabai
widows, but no issue. Near about 12 acres of part of Sy. No. 47,
which was in possession of tenant Sadashiv was declared to be
his ownership U/Sec. 38 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Subhadrabai sold Sy. No. 47/2
measuring 06 Acres to appellant No. 2 - Jayaji and appellant No.
4 - Ananda vide sale deed dated 14.06.1971 (Exhibit 89). The
possession was also parted with. Thereafter she further
alienated 06 Acres of Sy. No. 47/1 to her real brother, appellant
No. 3 - Sakharam on 19.06.1976 vide sale deed Exhibit 91. The
purchasers are in possession of the respective parcels of the
lands.
14. The genealogy discloses that Subhadrabai was member of
the family being first wife of Gyanu. The second wife was
Geetabai, who contracted remarriage after death of Gyanu in the
year 1960. The plaintiffs are allotted shares being members of
joint family in various properties by both the Courts below.
10 sa 821.99
Subhadrabai was alive and she was defendant No. 1 in the suit.
She had filed written statement. She is entitled to be treated as
a member of the joint family and entitled to receive share. It is
incomprehensible as to why Subhadrabai is excluded when it
comes to the partition in the properties. Learned counsel Mr.
Agrawal is right in contending that Geetabai could be allotted a
share, then definitely Subhadrabai is also entitled to share in
not only Sy. No. 47, but other suit properties also.
15. Both the parties have not disputed that suit lands
excluding Sy. No. 47 are undivided joint family properties.
Subhadrabai died without leaving any issue, but the alienations
made by her during the life time are relevant. The purchasers
are entitled to have adjustments of the equities against the share
allottable to Subhadrabai. Parties are not challenging partition
in respect of other suit properties. But principally and logically
she is entitled to have share in all the properties of the joint
family along with other members of the family.
16. Geetabai remarried after death of Gyanu. Both learned
counsels have made rival claims for entitlement of Geetabai to
receive the share in the joint family property by referring to Sec.
2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act 1856 (hereafter referred
as to the 'Act of 1856' for the sake of brevity and convenience).
The relevant section is as follows :
11 sa 821.99
The Hindu Widows Remarriage Act 1856
1. ....
2. Right of widow in deceased husband's property to cease on
her re-marriage._ All rights and interests which any widow may have
in her deceased husband's property by way of maintenance, or by
inheritance to her husband or to his lineal successors or by virtue of any
will or testamentary disposition conferring upon her, without express
permission to re-marry, only a limited interest in such property, with no
power of alienating the same, shall upon her re-marriage cease and
determine as if she has then died; and the next heir of her deceased
husband, or other persons entitled to the property on her death, shall
thereupon succeed to the same."
17. The submission of the appellants is that on remarriage,
Geetabai ceases to be member of earlier husband's family. She is
deemed to be dead. My attention is adverted to the judgment
rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter
of Sitabai Narhari Rakshe @ Sitabai Gangaram Shete and others Vs. Hari
Laxman Rakshe and another reported in 2012(1) Mh.L.J. 678, inter alia
reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
matter of Velamuri Venkata Sivprasad (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Kothuri
Venkateshwarly (dead) by L.Rs. and others reported in AIR 2000 SCC 434.
Para Nos. 11 to 13 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge
are reproduced as follows :
11. Mrs. Ambekar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Mr.
Shitole, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 have placed reliance on
the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Velamuri Venkata
Sivaprasad (dead) by Lrs v/s. Kothuri Venkateshwarly (dead) by LRs and
others, reported in AIR 2000 SCC 434. After quoting Section 2 of the
1856 Act, the Supreme Court has observed this in paragraphs 17, 18, 19,
49, 54 and 57 as under:-
12 sa 821.99
"17. Incidentally, the Act of 1856 was in the Statute Book until
the year 1983 and it only stands repealed by Act 24 of 1983.
18. Section 2 of the Act of 1856, therefore, has taken away the
right of widow in the event of re-marriage and the Statute is very
specific to the effect that the widow on remarriage would be
deemed to be otherwise dead. The words "as if she had then died"
(emphasis supplied) are rather significant. The legislature
intended therefore that in the event of a re- marriage, one looses
the rights of even the limited interest in such property and after
re-marriage the next heirs of her deceased's husband shall
thereupon succeed to the same. It is thus a statutory recognition of
a well reasoned preexisting Shastric Law.
"19: An attempt has however been made as regards overriding
effect of Hindu Succession Act in terms of Section 4(1) thereof.
Section 4(1) provides as below:-
4 Overriding effect of Act- (1) Save as otherwise expressly
provided in this Act:- (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu
law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force
immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to
have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made
in this Act; (b) any other law in force immediately before the
commencement of this Act cease to apply to Hindus insofar as it
is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. (2)
For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing
contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect the provisions of
any law for the time being in force providing for the prevention of
fragmentation of agricultural holdings or for the fixation of
ceilings or for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such
holdings."
"49. Incidentally, be it noted that the Succession Act of 1956
obviously is prospective in operation and in the event of a
divestation prior to 1956,question of applicability of Section
14(1) would not arise since on the date when it applied, there was
already a remarriage disentitling the widow to inherit the property
of the deceased husband. The Act of 1856 had its full play on the
date of re-marriage itself, as such Succession Act, could not
13 sa 821.99
confer the widow who has already re-married, any right in terms
of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956. The Succession Act has
transformed a limited ownership to an absolute ownership but it
cannot be made applicable in the event of there being a factum of
pre-divestation of estate as a limited owner. If there existed a
limited estate or interest for the widow, it could become absolute
but if she had no such limited estate or interest in lieu of her right
of maintenance from out of deceased husband's estate, there
would be no occasion to get such non-existing limited right
converted into full ownership right.
"54. Incidentally, Section 24 of the Succession Act of 1956,
placed certain restrictions on certain specified widows in the
event of there being a re-marriage; while it is true that Section
speaks of a predeceased son or son of a pre-deceased son but this
in out view is a reflection of the Shastric Law on to the statute.
The Act of 1956 in terms of Section 8 permits the widow of a
male Hindu to inherit simultaneously with the son, daughter and
other heirs specified in class I of the Schedule. As a matter of fact
she takes her share absolutely and not the widow's estate only in
terms of Section 14. Remarriage of a widow stands legalized by
reason of the incorporation of Act of 1956 but on her re-
marriage she forfeits the right to obtain any benefit from out of
her deceased husband's estate and Section 2 of the Act of 1856 as
noticed above is very specific that the estate in that event would
pass on the next heir of her deceased husband as if she were dead.
Incidentally, the Act of 1856 does not stand abrogated or repealed
by the Succession Act of 1956 and it is only by Act 24 of 1983
that the Act stands repealed. As such the Act of 1856 had its
fullest application in the contextual facts in 1956 when Section
14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act was relied upon by Defendant
No.1.
"57. Having considered the matter from all perspectives, we
do feel it expedient to record that the Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court clearly fell into an error in not
considering the true effect of Section 2 of the Act of 1856.
According to us, final decision rendered by the learned single
Judge on non-applicability of Section 14(1) of the Hindu
Succession Act remains well sustained, though on a different line
14 sa 821.99
of reasoning as indicated herein above. Accordingly, it must be
held that the Division Bench was in error in applying Section
14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act on the fact situation in the
present case."
12. Thus, it is clear that the question of law framed at the time of
admitting this Second Appeal is squarely covered by atleast three
Judgments.
13. In view of the conclusive and binding Judgments of the Division
Bench and of the Supreme Court in Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad (supra),
there is no merit in the Second Appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
18. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the matter of Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) through
L.Rs. Vs. Tiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki and others (supra). In that case
also Supreme Court was dealing with entitlement of a widow
who contracted second marriage. The provisions of the Act of
1856 were considered. It is reiterated that widow on remarriage
looses her right in the property of her earlier husband. I have no
hesitation to uphold the contention of the appellants that
Geetabai is not entitled to have any share in the property. The
allotment of share to her by both the Courts below, especially in
land Sy. No. 47 is illegal. The respondent No. 1 - Kundalik,
respondent No. - Yelabai and Subhadrabai are entitled to have
share in the Sy. No. 47. Out of them respondent No. 3 - Yelabai
died and her share would devolve on Kundalik and
Subhadrabai.
19. It has come on record that joint family had various other
15 sa 821.99
properties and acerage was about 37 to 40. It can be said that
sufficient nucleus was available with the family for purchasing
land Sy. No. 47. A reference is made to mutation entry No. 185,
which shows that all the suit lands including Sy. No. 47 was
shown to be of joint family properties of Subhadrabai, Kundalik
and Subhadrabai was the manager. It has also come in the
deposition of defendant's witness Jayaji that there was sufficient
nucleus to purchase land Sy. No. 47. Even evidence of D.W. No.
1 - Kundalik also shows that Sy. No. 47 was purchased from
nucleus of the joint family. Relying on this material Appellate
Court recorded a finding that it is a joint family property.
20. However, lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate
clinching part of the evidence, which is indicative of the fact that
Sy. No. 47 has to be held as self acquired property of Gyanu on
the preponderance of probabilities. The revenue record after
alienations especially Exhibit 89 is over looked. Following are
the circumstances, which would indicate that Sy. No. 47 is self
acquired property.
A. Sy. No. 47 was exclusively purchased in the name of
Gyanu, by registered sale deed.
B. Sy. No. 47/2 to the extent of 06 Acres was sold by
Subhadrabai to appellant No. 1 - Jayaji and appellant No.
4 - Ananda jointly on 14.06.1971. A mutation entry No.
206 was effected, which was not challenged. Thereafter
names of the purchasers were included in 7/12 extracts
16 sa 821.99
(Exhibit 62 and 63) showing their names are over looked.
C. No steps were taken by the respondents to challenge
mutations or record of rights.
D. Subhadrabai sold part of Sy. No. 47/1 to the appellant No.
3 - Sakharam on 19.06.1976 by sale deed at Exhibit 91.
E. Both sale deeds at Exhibit Nos. 89 and 91 recite that part
of Sy. No. 47, which was alienated was land belonging to
Gyanu and thereafter Subhadrabai.
F. As Jayaji had contributed to the extent of 1/4th in
consideration, therefore, his right was recognized by
executing sale deed Exhibit 89. The oral evidence of the
defendants unequivocally show the contribution of Jayaji.
G. The surrounding circumstances supported by revenue
record indicate that the theory of appellants that Gyanu
had purchased Sy. No. 47 from 3/4th contribution from his
mother-in-law and ¼ from Jayaji cannot be ruled out.
21. Learned counsel Mr. Kudale adverted my attention to the
cross examination of defendants witness - Sakharam, who has
disclosed that the payment of Rs. 6,000/- by his mother to Gyanu
was related to him by his mother and there was no document
showing such a payment from mother. Gyanu's mother-in-law
was also not examined. These submissions do not command me.
It is not known as to whether his mother-in-law was alive when
17 sa 821.99
the evidence was recorded so as to depose in his favour. These
stray instances are not sufficient to hold that land was purchased
from joint family nucleus.
22. I find no merit in the submissions of Mr. Kudale that by
implication of Sec. 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, the share
falling to Subhadrabai needs to be allotted to the respondent No.
1 - Kundalik. Kundalik is entitled to half share in other suit
lands, which are joint family properties. Subhadrabai was
competent to alienate part and parcels of the Sy. No. 47 vide sale
instances Exhibit Nos. 89 and 91. Kundalik can have no claim to
the extent of Sy. No. 47.
23. The shares allotted by the lower Appellate Court are not in
accordance with law. Subhadrabai was illegally excluded from
sharing the joint family properties. Geetabai is already held to
be not entitled to any share still she is being allotted 1/6th share
by the lower Appellate Court. If Sy. No. 47 is the exclusive
property of Gyanu, the respondents are not entitled to claim
anything in it.
24. Assuming that the finding of the lower Appellate Court
that Sy. No. 47 is joint family property, still the alienations made
by Subhadrabai cannot be upset. The total acerage of all lands
would be about 47 acres. Out of that 12 acres of Sy. No. 47 was
given to the tenant - purchaser. In the balance Subhadrabai
and respondent No. 1 - Kundalik will get half share. Thus,
18 sa 821.99
Subhadrabai is entitled to 17 acres 20 Gunthas. She has
alienated considering Exhibit Nos. 89 and 91, in agreegate 12
acres. The net result is that the sale deeds executed in favour of
the appellants need to be validated.
25. I find that lower Appellate Court has committed grave
error of jurisdiction in holding that Sy. No. 47 is joint family
property. The substantial questions of law are answered in the
negative. Therefore, I pass following order.
ORDER
a. Judgment and decree dated 04.03.1999 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Hingoli in R.C.A. No. 82
of 1985 is quashed and set aside.
b. Judgment and decree dated 28.02.1985 passed in R.C.S.
No. 112 of 1976 is confirmed.
c. R.C.S. No. 112 of 1976 stands dismissed to the extent of
land Sy. No. 47 holding that sale deeds at Exhibit 89 and
91 are legal and valid.
d. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/Sept. 25
