Second Appeal No. 224 of 1994. Case: Shamkalabai Vs Bhikamsing Kishansing Chouvan. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Second Appeal No. 224 of 1994 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.M. Patil (Beedkar) and For Respondents: B.A. Darak,Adv. |
| Judges | T.V. Nalawade, J. |
| Issue | Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 34 |
| Citation | 2014 (5) ABR 84, 2015 (1) MhLj 78 |
| Judgement Date | March 20, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
T.V. Nalawade, J., (Aurangabad Bench)
-
This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 196 of 1985 which was pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge Beed. The appeal filed by the respondent - defendant against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 is allowed by the First Appellate Court. The trial Court had given judgment and decree of permanent injunction in favour of appellant/plaintiff and that decision is set aside by the First Appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. The plaintiff is wife of brother of the defendant. The suit was filed in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 114 situated at Beed and admeasuring 7 acres. It is also in respect of one half share in the water of well situated in Survey No. 114.
-
It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was purchased by her from the funds given by her father, under registered sale dated 19-1-1975. It is her case that from the date of purchase she has been in possession of the suit property as absolute owner. It is her case that she has spent Rs. 9,000/- to 10,000/- for improving the quality of this land. It is her case that the defendant is falsely contending that the suit property is Joint Hindu family property of defendant and his brothers. It is contended that the defendant is trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Relief of permanent injunction was sought by the plaintiff/appellant.
-
The defendant has filed written statement and he has contended that his father Kishansing had three brothers including one Ratansing. It is his case that Ratansing was dead and he has left behind his widow and issues. It is contended that Jamnabai, widow of Ratansing had filed a suit for relief of partition against Kishansing and others. It is contended that the trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of Jamnabai in the year 1971 but the appeal filed by the defendant was pending in District Court.
-
It is the case of the defendant that in view of the proceeding pending, the suit property was purchased in the year 1975 in the name of the plaintiff. It is contended that only due to pendency of the aforesaid proceeding and due to fear that Jamnabai may include the newly purchased property also in the suit, the property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff. It is contended that defendant was minor at the relevant time.
-
It is the case of the defendant that Kishansing was having a grocery shop and after his death three sons like defendant, husband of plaintiff (Bharatsing) and Madansing continued to run the shop. It is contended that, they became partners after the death of Kishansing. It is his case that after death of Kishansing they continued to live in Hindu joint family and in the year 1975 when the property was purchased they were members of the Hindu joint family. It is contented that from the income of the aforesaid shop, the suit property was purchased. It is contended that Bharatsing, husband of the plaintiff, was managing the affairs and he was even running the grocery shop.
-
It is the case of the defendant that the suit property was never in actual possession of the plaintiff and three brothers were together cultivating the land. It is contended that electric motor was fixed on the well from the income of the shop. It is contended that plaintiff has no source of income and she is falsely contending that her father had given money for purchasing the suit property. It is contended that not only the suit property but other lands were also purchased from the income of the shop and other lands were purchased in the name of son of the plaintiff.
-
It is the case of the defendant that, in the year 1979 partition took place amongst the defendant, Bharatsing and Madansing. It is contended that the suit property came to the share of the defendant and since then he is cultivating the suit property as absolute owner. It is contended that three lands purchased in the name of son of the plaintiff from Kumsi were given to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial