{"id":239473,"date":"2008-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-07-03T18:08:23","modified_gmt":"2015-07-03T12:38:23","slug":"equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Equbalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Equbalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar<\/div>\n
                                (1)\n\n\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n\n                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n                SECOND APPEAL NO.300 OF 1989\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n     01. Equbalbegum w\/o Sk.Ahmed\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n     02. Mohd.Anwar s\/o Sk.Ahmed\n\n     03. Mohd.Mustafa s\/o Sk.Ahmed\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n     04. Mohd. Osman s\/o Sk.Ahmed\n\n     05. Mohd.Samad s\/o Sk.Ahmed.\n\n     06. Jamilabi w\/o Sk Ismail\n\n\n\n\n                                \n     07. Najamabegum w\/o Syed Equbal\n                  \n     08. Lalbi w\/o Shaha Mohd.\n\n     09. Khalil Mohd. s\/o Shaha Mohd.\n                 \n     10. Abedabegum w\/o Syyed Anis\n\n     11. Khamarbegum w\/o   Syyed Chand\n\n     12. Amenabegum syyed Baba\n      \n\n\n     13. Abdul Khadir s\/o Shaha Mohd.\n   \n\n\n\n     14. Saidabegum w\/o Ekbal\n\n     15. Sk.Abdul Sattar s\/o Shaha Mohd             APPELLANTS\n\n             VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n\n     01. Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad\n\n     02. Banobi w\/o Abdul Karim\n\n     03. Vajirbi w\/o Sk.Ismail         (Apeal abated as\n                                       against R-3 as per\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       order dt. 15.07.2008)\n\n     04. Fatemabi w\/o Amirkhan\n\n     05. Shaikh Bale s\/o Fateh Mohd.                RESPONDENTS\n\n                      .....\n\n     Mr. S.P.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellants\n\n\n\n\n                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::\n                                            (2)\n\n     Mr. C.R.Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.1\n                       .....\n\n                                            [CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]\n\n                                            Reserved on   : 15\/09\/2008\n                                            Pronounced on : 19\/09\/2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n                                            ----------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n     JUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
     1.           Challenge        in    this     appeal      is      to     judgment<\/p>\n
     rendered          by learned Second Additional District Judge,<\/p>\n
     Beed,        in     an    appeal (RCA       No.415\/1984)         whereby        and<\/p>\n
     whereunder             dismissal    of decree in a Civil Suit                  (RCS<\/p>\n
     No.144\/1979) came to be reversed.\n<\/p>\n
     2.           Appellants
\n                               ig   herein are original defendant Nos.\n<\/p>\n
     1     to     7 and 9 to 15.          Respondent No.1 Abdul Rahim                  is<\/p>\n
     the        original       plaintiff.       Respondent No.2          Banobi        is<\/p>\n
     original          defendant        No.16, deceased       respondent            No.3<\/p>\n
     Vajirbi           is original defendant No.18, respondent                      No.4<\/p>\n
     Fatemabi          is     original defendant No.17 and               respondent<\/p>\n
     No.5        Shaikh       Bale is original defendant No.19 in                    the<\/p>\n
     context of suit bearing RCS No.144\/1979.\n<\/p>\n
     3.           The suit was for partition in respect of three<\/p>\n
     house        properties       bearing       M.C.   Nos.1422,          1425      and<\/p>\n
     1426, situated at Lohargalli, Beed and as described in<\/p>\n
     the        plaint.        The following pedigree table is                  mostly<\/p>\n
     uncontroverted,             expect the controversy pertaining                     to<\/p>\n
     branch            inherited    by     Chandbi,        through         whom      the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff claims right of succession.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                     (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
                               Haji-Mohammed
\n     _________________________\u00a6___________________________
\n             \u00a6                                                       \u00a6
\n         (Daughter)                                    Mohammed Osman<\/p>\n
     Chandbi (Disputed)                                              \u00a6
\n     ______\u00a6____________________________________                     \u00a6
\n     \u00a6               \u00a6               \u00a6        \u00a6          \u00a6           \u00a6<\/p>\n
     Sk.Bale Abdul Rahim Banobi             Vazirbi Fatemabi         \u00a6
\n     (son)           (son)       (Dter)     (Dter) (Dter)            \u00a6
\n     Dft.19        Plaintiff Dft.16         Dft.18 Dft.17            \u00a6
\n                                                                     \u00a6
\n       __________________________________________________\u00a6<\/p>\n
       \u00a6                                                   \u00a6
\n     Mohommed Amin                                   Shaikh Ahmed
\n         (son)                                           (son)
\n       \u00a6          _________________________________\u00a6______
\n       \u00a6           \u00a6               \u00a6              \u00a6              \u00a6
\n     Shaha       Anwar       Mustaffa           Shaikh       Akbalbi<\/p>\n
     Mohd        Dft.1         Dft.2             Dft.3         Dft.4
\n       \u00a6          ________________________________________
\n       \u00a6
\n       \u00a6
\n       \u00a6
\n                     \u00a6
\n                   son
\n                  Samad
\n                         ig            \u00a6
\n                                   Daughter
\n                                     Nazema
\n                                                       \u00a6
\n                                                    Daughter
\n                                                    Zemilabi
\n       \u00a6          Dft.5              Dft. 6         Dft.7<\/p>\n
       \u00a6____________________________________________
\n       \u00a6       \u00a6             \u00a6              \u00a6                \u00a6
\n       \u00a6     son            son           Widow            son
\n       \u00a6 Abdul Sattr       Khalil         Lalbi        Mohd.Kadir
\n       \u00a6    Dft.8           Dft.9         Dft.10         Dft.11
\n       \u00a6____________________________________________<\/p>\n
             \u00a6               \u00a6              \u00a6              \u00a6
\n           Daughter     Daughter         Daughter      Daughter<\/p>\n
            Abeda        Syeda         Khairunisa        Amina
\n            Dft.12       Dft.13           Dft.14       Dft.15<\/p>\n
     4.         Briefly    stated,     the plaintiff’s case in                 the<\/p>\n
     trial Court was that the suit properties were owned by<\/p>\n
     common     ancestor       – Haji Mohommad, who died             about       70<\/p>\n
     years     prior, leaving behind him daughter Chandbi                      and<\/p>\n
     son     Mohd     Osman.    He avered that after the             death       of<\/p>\n
     Haji     Mohd,    said Chandbi and Mohd Osman were                 jointly<\/p>\n
     enjoying       possession    of   the suit      properties           during<\/p>\n
     their lifetime.       Chandbi was dwelling in house No.1422<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
     whereas        Mohd Osman was dwelling in other two                     houses.\n<\/p>\n
     The suit house properties were not partitioned amongst<\/p>\n
     themselves.            Mohd Osman died prior to about 35                       years<\/p>\n
     and     predeceased          Chandbi.       She died      about        5       years<\/p>\n
     later,     leaving          behind two sons i.e.            plaintiff            and<\/p>\n
     defendant        No.19-Shaikh Bale and three daughters                         i.e.<\/p>\n
     defendants No.16 to 18.                Defendants No.1 to 15 are the<\/p>\n
     legal     representatives of Mohd Osman and are occupants<\/p>\n
     of     other        two     houses bearing Nos.         1425       and         1426,<\/p>\n
     whereas        he     and his branch members are              occupants           of<\/p>\n
     house     No.1422.           Father of defendants No.1 to                  3     had<\/p>\n
     filed     a suit (RCS No.65\/1968) for possession                        against<\/p>\n
     the<\/p>\n
             defendant No.19- Shaikh Bale, which was                        decreed.\n<\/p>\n
     An     appeal carried by defendant No.19-Shaikh Bale                            was<\/p>\n
     dismissed        on 10.02.1971.           According to plaintiff,                he<\/p>\n
     and     defendant         Nos.16 to 18 were not parties                 to       the<\/p>\n
     said     suit        and,    therefore, the judgment             and       decree<\/p>\n
     rendered in the said suit is not binding on them.                               He,<\/p>\n
     therefore,          sought     2\/7th      share   as    a     successor           of<\/p>\n
     deceased Chandbi.\n<\/p>\n
     5.         The        contesting defendants (Appellants herein)<\/p>\n
     resisted        the suit.         They flatly denied that              deceased<\/p>\n
     Chandbi was the daughter of deceased Haji Mohd and was<\/p>\n
     residing in house property bearing No.1422.                          They also<\/p>\n
     denied     that after the death of Chandbi, plaintiff and<\/p>\n
     defendant        Nos.16       to 19 continued to reside                therein.\n<\/p>\n
     According        to       them,    a portion of house           No.1422          was<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
     temporarily          given       to   the      plaintiff         and      defendant<\/p>\n
     No.19, as licenceeses.                They asserted that a false and<\/p>\n
     vexatious           claim        is    set     up     by      the         plaintiff<\/p>\n
     notwithstanding            the     decree      for     possession           in     the<\/p>\n
     previous suit (RCS No.65\/1968) against defendant No.19<\/p>\n
     -Shaikh       Bale.         They would submit that                the      previous<\/p>\n
     judgments         and      decree     is binding on           the       plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
     Hence,        they       sought       dismissal       of    the        suit       with<\/p>\n
     compensatory costs of Rs.1000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     6.          The      parties went to trial over certain issues<\/p>\n
     struck       by the learned Civil Judge.                   The learned Civil<\/p>\n
     Judge<\/p>\n
                 (JD), was pleased to dismiss the suit.                          He held<\/p>\n
     that        the     plaintiff         failed     to    prove        his         lawful<\/p>\n
     possession          in     respect of house No.1422 and also                       the<\/p>\n
     allegation          that     deceased        Chandbi       was      daughter         of<\/p>\n
     original          owner,     namely, Haji Mohd.               He,       therefore,<\/p>\n
     held that neither the plaintiff nor defendant Nos.                                   16<\/p>\n
     to     18    are     entitled to claim any share in                       the     suit<\/p>\n
     properties.              Feeling        aggrieved,            the         plaintiff<\/p>\n
     preferred         an appeal (RCA No.415\/1984), which came                            to<\/p>\n
     be     allowed.          By the impugned judgment,                  the     learned<\/p>\n
     Additional          District Judge held that deceased                       Chandbi<\/p>\n
     was     daughter         of Haji Mohd and was entitled to                        claim<\/p>\n
     her     share       in the suit properties.                He held that            the<\/p>\n
     judgment          and decree in previous suit (RCS No.65\/1968)<\/p>\n
     would       not     be binding on rights of the plaintiff                          and<\/p>\n
     the     defendants No.16 to 18.                He further held that the<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
     plaintiff would be entitled to 2\/7th share in the suit<\/p>\n
     properties, defendant Nos.                16 to 18 would be entitled<\/p>\n
     to     get     1\/7th     share out of 1\/3rd share                of     deceased<\/p>\n
     Chandbi and defendant No.19 would be entitled to 2\/7th<\/p>\n
     share out of the share of deceased Chandbi.\n<\/p>\n
     7.           Mr.Chapalgaonkar         would submit that the                First<\/p>\n
     Appellate Court committed patent error while reversing<\/p>\n
     the dismissal decree.             He would submit that though the<\/p>\n
     defendant        No.19-Shaikh Bale was held as trespasser in<\/p>\n
     respect        of    house    property No.1422 as            a        result    of<\/p>\n
     decision        in     the previous suit, yet by virtue of                     the<\/p>\n
     impugned        judgment,      2\/7th share has been allotted                    to<\/p>\n
     him,     which<\/p>\n
                          is impermissible.        He contended that                the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff        filed      false    suit     after    commencement             of<\/p>\n
     execution        proceedings        in    relation     to      the      earlier<\/p>\n
     decree        for possession.        He would submit that there is<\/p>\n
     no     tangible        evidence to infer that deceased                  Chandbi<\/p>\n
     was     the     daughter of the original owner – Haji                      Mohd.\n<\/p>\n
     He     would submit, therefore, that the findings of                           the<\/p>\n
     First        Appellate      Court are perverse and liable to                    be<\/p>\n
     interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
     8.           There     is    no     dispute about      the       fact      that,<\/p>\n
     during        pendency      of this appeal,       original            defendant<\/p>\n
     No.18-Vajirbi,           who was respondent No.3 herein,                   died.\n<\/p>\n
     Her     legal representatives are not brought on                        record.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal        abated     against her, as per order rendered                     by<\/p>\n
     this     Court       on 15.07.2008.         No steps were         taken        for<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
     substitution        of the legal representatives and setting<\/p>\n
     aside     the abatement.           Thus, the partition decree,                          to<\/p>\n
     the extent of her share, has become final.\n<\/p>\n
     9.        Before      I     proceed to consider merits                         of     the<\/p>\n
     matter,      let     it     be         noted          that     unfortunately            no<\/p>\n
     substantial        question        of    law was             framed       when       this<\/p>\n
     second     appeal came to be admitted.                        The then         Hon’ble<\/p>\n
     Judge (A.D.Mane,J.), passed following order-\n<\/p>\n
               “Admit.           Notice,          R    &       P.          Shri.Yevtekar<\/p>\n
               advocate waives notice for respondent No.1”\n<\/p>\n
     10.       Mr.C.R.Deshpande,              learned             advocate         for     the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff \/ original defendant No.1, would submit that<\/p>\n
     the     Second     Appeal        has     abated in            entirety         due      to<\/p>\n
     non-substitution            of      the            L.R.s         of       respondent<\/p>\n
     No.3-deceased Vajirbi.             He would submit that since the<\/p>\n
     partition        decree     has become final to the                       extent        of<\/p>\n
     respondent        No.3-deceased Vajirbi, now passing of                               any<\/p>\n
     conflicting         decree,            without          taking          her         legal<\/p>\n
     representatives        on        record,         would         not      be     proper.\n<\/p>\n
     Hence,     he urged that the appeal may be held as abated<\/p>\n
     under     Order     XXII     Rule        3       of    the     Code       of        Civil<\/p>\n
     Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
     11.       There      is     no     substantial               question         of     law,<\/p>\n
     reflected        from the appeal memo.                  The First           Appellate<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                               (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Court       appreciated            the evidence on record.                  The      only<\/p>\n
     disputed          question is whether Chandbi was the daughter<\/p>\n
     of     deceased Haji Mohd and was in occupation of                                 house<\/p>\n
     property          bearing         No.1422       in her own rights              as     his<\/p>\n
     heir.         True,          in    the        previous    litigation           against<\/p>\n
     defendant          No.19-Shaikh           Bale,     the       Court       held       that<\/p>\n
     Shaikh Bale was a licencee of the said house property.\n<\/p>\n
     It     is     difficult to say that such a finding would                                be<\/p>\n
     binding        upon plaintiff Abdul Rahim and the                           defendant<\/p>\n
     Nos.         16    to 18, who were not parties to                       that        suit.<\/p>\n
\n\n     The     concept of joint family, as available in case                                   of\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n     real     brothers under the Hindu Law, is of no avail                                   in\n\n     relation          to\n                             \n                              brothers, who are governed by                      Mohomedan\n\n     Law.         It    is well settled that Mohomedan legal                             heirs\n                            \n     take     their          share       immediately      after         death       of     the\n\n     predecessor.                 Shares      of    plaintiff Abdul            Rahim       and\n\n     defendant          Nos.16 to 19 were crystallized                       immediately\n      \n\n\n     after       death        of       Chandbi,      if it is       held       that       they\n   \n\n\n\n     derived        the suit properties from her.                       If it is found\n\n     that     she       is the daughter of deceased Haji Mohd                             then\n\n\n\n\n\n     her     share was crystallized immediately after death of\n\n     said     Haji          Mohd.        There      could be       no     jointness          of\n\n     ownership          between Chandbi and Mohd Osman, though they\n\n     may         have       been       in     possession       of       separate         house\n\n\n\n\n\n     properties             as the legal heirs of deceased Haji                         Mohd.\n\n     It     is not necessary to enter into the thicket of fact\n\n     finding        process.           For, the First Appellate Court duly\n\n     considered             the     municipal record and              other        evidence\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::<\/span>\n                                            (9)<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n
     while concluding that defendant No.19-Shaikh Bale used<\/p>\n
     to     pay municipal taxes of house No.1422.                           Rightly         or<\/p>\n
     wrongly,        the        First     Appellate          Court       came       to      the<\/p>\n
     conclusion        that the plaintiff, defendant No.19-Shaikh<\/p>\n
     Bale     and the defendant Nos.                  16 to 18, were               entitled<\/p>\n
     to     decree     for partition of their shares.                            The     fact<\/p>\n
     finding process of the First Appellate Court cannot be<\/p>\n
     questioned        in the Second Appeal and it is moreso when<\/p>\n
     no     substantial          question        of    law      was      framed          while<\/p>\n
     admitting        the appeal.          The second appeal,                 therefore,<\/p>\n
     falls     outside the pale of section 100 of the Code                                   of<\/p>\n
     Civil     Procedure.          I am of the opinion that additional<\/p>\n
     substantial<\/p>\n
                           question       of law can be framed under                        sub<\/p>\n
     clause     (5)        of     section       100 of       the      Code       of      Civil<\/p>\n
     Procedure        only        when already one or more                  substantial<\/p>\n
     questions         of         law      have        been        formulated               for<\/p>\n
     consideration.             However, where there is no substantial<\/p>\n
     question        of law framed at all, then there would be no<\/p>\n
     scope     for framing additional substantial questions of<\/p>\n
     law by invoking powers under sub clause (5) of section<\/p>\n
     100 of the Civil Procedure Code.                    Needless to say, the<\/p>\n
     Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed for want of any<\/p>\n
     substantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n
     12.        For        the     sake    of     argument, even              if       it    is<\/p>\n
     assumed     that           substantial       questions of             law     may       be<\/p>\n
     formulated        at this stage then also it is difficult to<\/p>\n
     consider        this        second    appeal on          merits.            For,       the<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 (10)<\/span><\/p>\n
     appeal        is        abated       against       respondent       No.3-deceased<\/p>\n
     Vajirbi.            As stated before, the decree for                       partition<\/p>\n
     in     her     favour              has become final under           the      impugned<\/p>\n
     judgment           due        to    such    abatement.        Mr.Chapalgaonkar<\/p>\n
     would        rely        on        “Mahmud Mian (Dead) through               LRs     and<\/p>\n
     another        V\/s.           Shamsuddin Mian (Dead) through LRs                     and<\/p>\n
     others” (2005) 11 SCC 582.                        The Apex Court did not lay<\/p>\n
     down     any        ratio as such in the given case.                       The      Apex<\/p>\n
     Court        observed that the appeal was not satisfactorily<\/p>\n
     disposed           of     by the Division Bench.              It      is     observed<\/p>\n
     that     it was a partition suit.                     It is further observed<\/p>\n
     that     on        account of death of one of the parties,                           the<\/p>\n
     appeal        could
\n                               ig  not have abated in its            entirety.            The<\/p>\n
     Apex          Court            allowed            substitution         of          legal<\/p>\n
     representatives                by     condoning       the delay.           The      Apex<\/p>\n
     Court, however, observed:\n<\/p>\n
                  “The        respondents’             plea that the        appeal        had<\/p>\n
                  abated in the High Court itself is kept open.”\n<\/p>\n
     13.          It         is explicit, therefore, that the                     question<\/p>\n
     regarding           abatement of the appeal was not                      foreclosed<\/p>\n
     by the Apex Court.                   He also seeks to rely on “N.Khosla<\/p>\n
     V.      Rajlakshmi (Dead) and others<\/a>” (AIR 2006 SC                                1249)<\/p>\n
     and     “Shahazada             Bi     and      others    V.Halimabi              (since<\/p>\n
     deceased           by L.Rs)” (AIR 2004 SC 3942).                    It is held by<\/p>\n
     the     Apex Court that if interests of co-defendants are<\/p>\n
     separate,           as        in case of co-owners, Suit               will        abate<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (11)<\/span><\/p>\n
     only as regards interest of deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     14.       Mr.C.R.Deshpande            seeks    to      rely       on     “Badni<\/p>\n
     (dead)    by    L.Rs.      and others etc.          V\/s.         Siri      Chand<\/p>\n
     (dead)    by    LRs     and      others”       (AIR     1999      SC     1077).\n<\/p>\n
     Reiterating       the tests stated in Nathu Ram’s case (AIR<\/p>\n
     1962     SC 89) the Apex Court held that the appeal would<\/p>\n
     be liable to be dismissed where :\n<\/p>\n
               a)    When the success of the appeal may lead to<\/p>\n
               the     Court’s coming to a decision which                       would<\/p>\n
               be    in conflict with the decision between                         the<\/p>\n
               appellant
\n                        ig      and    the deceased         respondent            and,<\/p>\n
               therefore,        which      would lead to           the     Court’s<\/p>\n
               passing      a decree which will be                contradictory<\/p>\n
               to    the     decree        which had become          final        with<\/p>\n
               respect to the same subject-matter between the<\/p>\n
               appellant and the deceased respondent;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               b)    when the appellant could not have                      brought<\/p>\n
               the     action      for the necessary relief                 against<\/p>\n
               those       respondents alone who are still                    before<\/p>\n
               the Court, and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               c)    when     the     decree       against      the       surviving<\/p>\n
               respondents,           if    the      appeal       succeeds,          be<\/p>\n
               ineffective,         that is to say, it could not                     be<\/p>\n
               successfully executed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (12)<\/span><\/p>\n
     15.        Mr.C.R.Deshpande                also seeks to rely on                 “Shri<\/p>\n
     Bakshish        Singh       (dead)         by LRs v\/s       Arjan       Singh       and<\/p>\n
     others”     (1996          (3)      Supreme     118),”       Matindu         Prakash<\/p>\n
     (Deceased)           by     LRs V\/s Bachan Singh and others”                       (AIR<\/p>\n
     1977     SC 2029), “Sri Chand and others V\/s M\/s                             Jagdish<\/p>\n
     Pershad     Kishan Chand and others” (AIR 1966 SC                              1427),<\/p>\n
     “Zilla Singh V.Chandgi” (1991 SC 263), and “Deoram Ana<\/p>\n
     Patil and Sonu Puna Patil” (1974 Mh.L.J.9).\n<\/p>\n
     16.        If        the above referred litmus test is applied,<\/p>\n
     one     would        see        that if the appeal succeeds                 then      it<\/p>\n
     would<\/p>\n
               lead to conflicting decision with the                             finality<\/p>\n
     of      decision           in     favour      of      deceased           respondent<\/p>\n
     No.3-Vajirbi.              It     need      not be emphasised             that      her<\/p>\n
     share     has        been crystallized and the decision in                          her<\/p>\n
     favour has become final due to abatement of the appeal<\/p>\n
     against     her.           So, if the appeal will be allowed                       then<\/p>\n
     such     decision          will      run      counter       to     the      finality<\/p>\n
     attained        in        respect     of the decision            of     the      First<\/p>\n
     Appellate        Court in her favour.                Passing of the decree<\/p>\n
     in     favour of the appellants will be contradictory                                 to<\/p>\n
     the decree, which has become final with respect to the<\/p>\n
     same      subject           matter       between      them       and        deceased<\/p>\n
     respondent           No.3-Vajirbi.           Considering the nature                   of<\/p>\n
     final     decree,          I     am of the opinion that               the      entire<\/p>\n
     appeal     would           abate due to abatement of the                    same      as<\/p>\n
     against         the         respondent             No.3-Vajirbi           (original<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::<\/span>
\n                              (13)<\/span><\/p>\n
     defendant   No.18).   For   this reason too        the      Second<\/p>\n
     Appeal must fail.\n<\/p>\n
     17.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no<\/p>\n
     order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                      [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ]
\n                                            JUDGE<\/p>\n
     drp\/SA300-89<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:48 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Equbalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008 Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.300 OF 1989 01. Equbalbegum w\/o Sk.Ahmed 02. Mohd.Anwar s\/o Sk.Ahmed 03. Mohd.Mustafa s\/o Sk.Ahmed 04. Mohd. Osman s\/o Sk.Ahmed 05. Mohd.Samad s\/o Sk.Ahmed. 06. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-239473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nEqubalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Equbalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-03T12:38:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Equbalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-03T12:38:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2143,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Equbalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-03T12:38:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Equbalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Equbalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Equbalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-03T12:38:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Equbalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-03T12:38:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008"},"wordCount":2143,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008","name":"Equbalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-03T12:38:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/equbalbegum-vs-abdul-rahim-fateh-mohammad-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Equbalbegum vs Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad on 19 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239473","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=239473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239473\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}