Jyotiben W/O Balvantbhai ... vs Minaxiben Wd/O Arvindbhai ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1752 Guj

           C/SA/124/2020                                 ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 124 of 2020

================================================================
            JYOTIBEN W/O BALVANTBHAI KHANDUBHAI NAIK
                              Versus
              MINAXIBEN WD/O ARVINDBHAI KHANDUBHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT K DAVE(5860) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                           Date : 05/02/2021

                            ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr.K.T. Dave for learned advocate Mr.Amit Dave for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta assisted by Ms.Masumi Nanavaty for the respondents.

Second Appeal is Admitted considering the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the suit filed by the Original Plaintiff in the Trial Court is for Partition of Joint Property and delivery of possession of 1/4th share therein to the Plaintiffs ?

(ii) Whether non joinder of about several persons comprised in four branches of late Shri Bhanabhai mentioned in deposition of Plaintiff's witness Exh.73 as well as in para 2 of Written Statement Ex.11 of deceased Original Defendant is fatal?

C/SA/124/2020 ORDER

(iii) Whetherthe findings of the Trial Court in para-11 and 15 of its Judgment dated 17.08.2015 in R.C.S. No.71 of 2009 based on the ruing of this Hon'ble High Court reported in AIR 1983 Gujarat 156 following the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1965 SC 271 be called perverse, erroneous or capricious and unjust?

(iv) Whether the findings given by the Lower Appellate Court that signatures on Partition Deed were proved by two witnesses Maganlal and Dineshbhai can be sustained when parties to the suit neither produced the partition deed nor any of the parties to the suit examined Maganlal and Dineshbhai as witnesses.

Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respondents.

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) VARSHA DESAI