Explore a detailed legal analysis of an ancestral property dispute in this case summary, focusing on the court’s examination of evidence to determine the nature of the properties in question. Delve into the complexities of inheritance law and the court’s findings regarding joint family ancestral properties.
Facts
- The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which dismissed her second appeal.
- The plaintiff passed away during the appeal process on 18.12.2014, and now her legal representatives are pursuing the appeal.
- Maruti, one of the sons, died on 13.7.1966.
- The appellant’s claim for the property at Village Nande was denied due to lack of proof.
- The property at Pirangut was the subject of the case
- The High Court provided its findings on the matter
- The specifics of the findings were not detailed in the context provided
Also Read: Landmark Judgment on Compensation for Fatal Accident
Issue
- Whether the properties at villages Pirangut and Nande are joint family ancestral properties in the hands of Maruti, the deceased son of Balaji, predecessor of the parties in appeal.
- Key issue involves determination of ancestral nature of properties in question.
- Central to resolving dispute among parties in appeal.
Also Read: Legal Analysis in Land Allotment Case
Arguments
- Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari argued that the property purchased by Raghunath was from the income of the ancestral property.
- Cited cases like Mallappa Girimallappa Betgeri & Ors. v. R. Yellappagouda Patil & Ors., Surendra Kumar v. Phoolchand (D) through LRs. & Anr., and Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade & Ors. to support his contention.
- Claimed that the appellants should not be deprived of their share in the property bought by Raghunath.
- Sopan, the brother of Raghunath, stated as PW-2, confirmed that the ancestral property is located at Lavale and Pirangut, with the property at Pirangut registered in the name of the elder brother Raghunath.
Also Read: Inter-State Jurisdiction: Assessing Legislative Competence
Analysis
- Sopan admitted in cross-examination that there was a partition between brothers at Lavale and Pirangut, not at Nande.
- A memorandum (Ex 111) was prepared to reflect the partition and arrangements made.
- Courts have unanimously held that the Nande property is not joint ancestral property.
- Properties at Pirangut and Nande were purchased by the husband of Geetabai.
- The property at Pirangut was divided among the brothers as per Mutation No. 1274.
- Contrary to claims, there was no substantiation for the land being gifted to Pandurang.
- The property status at Pirangut was determined as joint family property through evidence like settlement memorandums and mutations.
- The High Court’s findings without evidence regarding the property were deemed flawed.
- Raghunath was not the sole owner of the property at Pirangut.
- There is no evidence that he acquired the property from his income.
- Geetabai, the plaintiff, stated that her father-in-law was the owner of the property at Pirangut, which was corroborated by Sopan, the surviving son of Balaji.
- No evidence showed Raghunath’s capacity to purchase the property or the documentary evidence of partition at Village Pirangut.
- The findings of the High Court cannot be sustained due to lack of evidence.
- In accordance with the judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., the plaintiff and defendants, including Maruti’s daughters, have equal shares in the Pirangut and Lavale properties.
Decision
- The preliminary decree is ordered to be granted with Geetabai’s share devolving according to the law of succession.
- The purchaser will receive the same interest in the property as its vendor did in the decree.
- The appeal is allowed, and Geetabai, Pandurang, Krishnakant, Ramchandra, Muktabai, Chandrakant, Ramesh, Uma, Shailaja, and Sumitra will each have a 1/10 share.
- Parties are instructed to seek a final decree from the competent Court as per the law.
Case Title: GITABAI MARUTI RAUT (DEAD) THR. LR. SH. CHANDRAKANT M. RAUT Vs. PANDURANG MARUTI RAUT (D) THR. LRS (2022 INSC 817)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007702-007702 / 2013
