{"id":92081,"date":"2010-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-05T18:48:42","modified_gmt":"2016-08-05T13:18:42","slug":"second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Second Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Second Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: C. L. Pangarkar<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.\n                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n                SECOND APPEAL NO.354 OF 1996.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n    APPELLANTS :    1. Nandkishore Shamrao Daphe,\n                        aged about 37 years.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                    2. Shobha w\/o Nandkishore Daphe,\n                        aged about 35 years,\n\n                    3. Shamrao Baliramji Daphe,\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                        aged about 74 years.\n                            \n                        Nos.1 to 3 r\/o Rajura Bazar,\n                        Tq. Morshi, Distt.Amravati.          \n                           \n                                 ..VERSUS.. \n\n    RESPONDENTS: 1. Laxmibai wd\/o Lalchand Wazir,\n                     aged about 65 years, resident of\n          \n\n\n                     Amdapur, Tq.Warud, Distt.Amravati\n       \n\n\n\n                     (deleted)\n\n                      2. Sushilabai w\/o Motisingh Rathod,\n                          aged about 47 years, r\/o Nandurbar\n\n\n\n\n\n                          Railway Quarter Distt.Dhuliya.\n\n                      3. Ramesh Ambalal Wazir,\n                          aged about 43 years.\n\n\n\n\n\n                      4. Parmesh Ambalal Wazir,\n                          aged about 46 years,\n                          Nos.3 and 4 r\/o Sarafa, Amravati.\n\n                      5. Kesharbai wd\/o Ambalal Wazir,\n                          aged about 67 years. (deleted)\n\n                      6. Mulchand s\/o Ambalal Wazir,\n                          aged about 44 years. (deleted)\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:52:39 :::\n                                                2\n\n\n    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n    Mr.N.R.Saboo Advocate for the appellants.\n    None for the respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\n                             CORAM:  C.L.Pangarkar, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                             DATED :   22nd April, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
    1.     This   is   an   appeal   by   original   defendants   nos.1   to   3 <\/p>\n
    against whom a decree for declaration and injunction has been <\/p>\n
    passed.    The   parties   shall   hereinafter   be   referred   to   as   the  <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs and the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
    2.     The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows –\n<\/p>\n
           The plaintiffs\/respondent nos.1 to 3 and defendant nos.4 <\/p>\n
    and 5 are the joint owners of field Survey No.52\/2, which is <\/p>\n
    the   subject-matter   of   the   suit.     It   is   the   contention   of   the <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs   that   until   19\/5\/1980   the   said   land   was   never <\/p>\n
    partitioned amongst the plaintiffs and defendant nos.4 and 5.\n<\/p>\n
    It is contended that plaintiff no.1 has one-half share in the said <\/p>\n
    suit property while defendant nos.4 and 5 and plaintiff nos.2 <\/p>\n
    and 3 have the other one-half share in the suit property.   It is <\/p>\n
    contended that the relations between defendants nos. 4 and 5 <\/p>\n
    and   the   plaintiffs   are   strained.     The   plaintiffs   submit   that <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
    defendant   no.4   without   the   consent   of   the   plaintiffs   and <\/p>\n
    defendant no.5 sold 2 acres 15 gunthas of land surreptitiously <\/p>\n
    to   defendant   nos.1   to   3   by   registered   sale-deed   dated <\/p>\n
    11\/5\/1980.  The plaintiffs have contended that defendant no.4 <\/p>\n
    had no right to sell the said land to defendant nos.1 to 3.  They, <\/p>\n
    therefore, prayed for setting aside that sale.\n<\/p>\n
    3.     Defendant nos.1 to 3 filed their written-statement.  They <\/p>\n
    admitted   that   they   have   purchased   the   suit   property   from <\/p>\n
    defendant no.4.  According to them, the suit land had fallen to <\/p>\n
    the share of defendant no.4 in a partition between defendant <\/p>\n
    no.4 and Laxmibai – wife of plaintiff no.1.   They submit that <\/p>\n
    since   the   land   had   fallen   to   the   share   of   defendant   no.4   in <\/p>\n
    partition   on   21\/4\/1972   under   a   registered   partition-deed, <\/p>\n
    Kesharbai was the exclusive owner and she had every right to <\/p>\n
    sell the property.\n<\/p>\n
    4.     Defendant nos.4 and 5 did not contest the suit and did <\/p>\n
    not file any written-statement in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     The   learned   Judge   of   the   trial   court   found   that   the <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs and defendant nos. 4 and 5 were the joint owners of <\/p>\n
    the suit property.  Although he found that there was partition, <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
    he found that it was not legal as plaintiffs were excluded. It <\/p>\n
    was also held that defendant no.4 had without any right, title <\/p>\n
    or interest sold the suit property to defendant nos. 1 to 3.   He <\/p>\n
    also held that defendant no.4 Kesharbai was not the sole owner <\/p>\n
    of   the   property   by   virtue   of   partition   and   holding   so,   he <\/p>\n
    decreed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
    6.     Feeling aggrieved thereby, defendant nos.1 to 3 preferred <\/p>\n
    an appeal before the District Judge.  The learned Joint District <\/p>\n
    Judge, who heard the appeal, also found that the suit property <\/p>\n
    was joint property of the plaintiffs and defendant nos.4  and 5 <\/p>\n
    and   they   were   in   possession   of   the   same.     He   found   that <\/p>\n
    defendant no.4 had no authority to sell the property and there <\/p>\n
    was no partition between Laxmibai and Kesharbai.     Holding <\/p>\n
    so, he confirmed the decree passed by the trial court.   Hence, <\/p>\n
    this second appeal by defendant nos. 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
    7.     The appeal was admitted by order dated 23\/4\/1998 on <\/p>\n
    the following substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
            “In view of the finding and reasons as contained
\n            in   appellate   court   order   regarding   partition   of
\n            properties,   whether   declaration   granted
\n            restrictive   it   to   defendant   no.4   is  justified  and
\n            raised substantial question of law ?.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
    After  hearing  the   learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  and  the <\/p>\n
    respondents, it was felt that it was necessary to reformulate the <\/p>\n
    question of law.   This was necessary because the appeal was <\/p>\n
    preferred by the defendants\/purchasers and not the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
    The above question of law could be formulated had it been the <\/p>\n
    appeal of the plaintiffs.   The questions of law, which are now <\/p>\n
    formulated, are as follows –\n<\/p>\n
             1. Whether the appellate court was justified in
\n             reversing the finding of the Trial court that there
\n             was partition amongst Laxmibai and Kesharbai ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2. Whether therefore the appellate court could
\n             have set aside the sale in respect of share of the
\n             plaintiffs   and   defendant   no.5   if   there   was <\/p>\n
             partition ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8.     I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and <\/p>\n
    the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    9.     It would be necessary first to see what are the pleadings <\/p>\n
    of   the   plaintiffs.     In   para   no.2   of   the   plaint,   the   plaintiffs <\/p>\n
    contended that they and defendant nos.4 and 5 are the joint <\/p>\n
    owners of the suit property and there was never any partition <\/p>\n
    amongst   them   till   19\/5\/1980   or   even   any   time   thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
    Thus,   they   contend   that   Kesharbai\/defendant   no.4   alone   did <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
    not have a right to sell the suit property.  Defendant nos.1 to 3, <\/p>\n
    who   are   the   purchasers,   specifically   in   para   no.19   of   the <\/p>\n
    written   statement   plead   of   there   being   a   partition   between <\/p>\n
    Laxmibai and Kesharbai on 21\/4\/1972 and same having been <\/p>\n
    registered and suit property having fallen to share of defendant <\/p>\n
    no.4.   Inspite of such allegations by defendants, plaintiffs do <\/p>\n
    not come out with a case that the said partition is void.  Be that <\/p>\n
    as it may, the fact is that the plaintiffs pleaded the property to <\/p>\n
    be   joint   while   defendant   nos.   1   to   3   say   that   there   was   a <\/p>\n
    partition and the suit property fell to the share of defendant no.\n<\/p>\n
    4.  It cannot be disputed that if there was no partition the suit <\/p>\n
    property would belong to the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 4 <\/p>\n
    and 5.   Therefore, it will have to be seen that if courts below <\/p>\n
    have   properly   appreciated   the   evidence   and   the   facts.\n<\/p>\n
    Normally, the appellate court is not supposed to interfere with <\/p>\n
    the findings of the trial court unless it is based on no evidence <\/p>\n
    or is totally perverse.   The trial judge has certainly accepted as <\/p>\n
    a   fact   that   there   was   a   partition   on   21\/4\/1972   between <\/p>\n
    Laxmibai and Kesharbai yet he records a finding on issue no.2 <\/p>\n
    in the affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
            Do   the   plaintiffs   prove   that   S.No.52\/2
\n            was   not   partitioned   amongst   them   and <\/p>\n
            between   defendant   nos.4   and   5   till
\n            19\/5\/1980 or any time thereafter ?\n<\/p>\n
                                 …….                  ….. Yes <\/p>\n
    I quote the observations of the learned Judge on that aspect in <\/p>\n
    para no.10 of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
            “From the record it appears that the partition is <\/p>\n
            effected   in   between   Laxmibai   (Plaintiff   No.1-A) <\/p>\n
            and Kesrabai (defendant No.4).  But the questions
\n            arise before me whether Laxmibsai and Kesarabai <\/p>\n
            have right to partition the property during the life
\n            time of deceased Lalchand and by keeping aside
\n            the   plaintiff   no.2,   3   and   defendant   no.4.     The <\/p>\n
            answer is certainly not, because Laxmibai has no <\/p>\n
            right to claim partition during the life time of her
\n            husband Lalchand. Even assuming for a moment <\/p>\n
            that   the   partition   the   answer   is   no,   because
\n            extract of 7\/12 of the year 1971-72 to 1978-79,
\n            which are at Exhs.108 to 112, are clear that the <\/p>\n
            plaintiffs   and   defendant   nos.4   and   5   are
\n            cultivating the field No.52\/2 jointly.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    10.    From   this   discussion,   it   appears   that   the   learned   judge <\/p>\n
    accepts   that   there   was   a   partition   but   finds   that   these   two <\/p>\n
    ladies could not amongst themselves partition the property.  He <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
    thus finds that although there was a partition, it was not legal <\/p>\n
    as   they   could   not   exclude   the   plaintiff   and   defendant   no.5.\n<\/p>\n
    Here,   the   plaintiffs   do   not   challenge   the   partition   between <\/p>\n
    Laxmibai   and   Kesharbai   at   all   on   any   count   including   their <\/p>\n
    right   to   partition.   When   the   plaintiffs   do   not   challenge   the <\/p>\n
    registered   partition-deed,   the   learned   judge   could   not   have <\/p>\n
    decided   the   question   if   such   partition   was   valid   or   not   and <\/p>\n
    whether Laxmibai and Kesharbai alone had a right to partition.\n<\/p>\n
    11.    It appears to me, however, that the trial court had rightly <\/p>\n
    found that there was a partition.  The appellate court’s reasons <\/p>\n
    negating the theory do not appear to me to be convincing at all <\/p>\n
    as   he   has   absolutely   wrongly   appreciated   the   facts   and   the <\/p>\n
    evidence.   He forgets that civil cases are to be decided on the <\/p>\n
    basis   of   preponderance   of   the   probabilities.     In   fact,   in   the <\/p>\n
    instant   case,   one   need   not   to   go   by   even   preponderance   of <\/p>\n
    probabilities as there is ample evidence on record to hold that <\/p>\n
    there   was   partition   on   20\/4\/1972   as   pleaded   by   defendant <\/p>\n
    nos.1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
    12.    The   first   thing   that   needs   to   be   noted   is   that   the <\/p>\n
    defendants specifically plead of partition amongst Laxmibai and <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
    Kesharbai on 21\/4\/1972 by registered deed.  The plaintiffs do <\/p>\n
    not traverse this specific plea on part of the defendants nor do <\/p>\n
    they say by amending the plaint that the said partition is for <\/p>\n
    certain   reasons   void   or   not   binding   on   them.     The   next <\/p>\n
    important circumstance is that Kesharbai\/defendant no.4, who <\/p>\n
    executed   sale-deed   and   defendant   no.5,   who   signs   the   sale-\n<\/p>\n
    deed as attesting witness do not appear in the court and are <\/p>\n
    ex parte.   It is in this background, the facts and the evidence <\/p>\n
    ought to have been appreciated by the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
    13.   Learned judge of the appellate court observes that though <\/p>\n
    a photocopy of the registered partition-deed was shown to the <\/p>\n
    witness of plaintiff i.e. PW 2, defendants nos.1 to 3 did  not call <\/p>\n
    upon the plaintiffs to produce the original deed and since no <\/p>\n
    such   attempt   was   made,   secondary   evidence   was   not <\/p>\n
    admissible.     The   observations   of   the   learned   Judge   of   the <\/p>\n
    appellate   court   that   no  notice   to   produce   original  was  given <\/p>\n
    and therefore, no secondary evidence could be led is against <\/p>\n
    the record.   In file ‘D’ of the trial court, the defendants, vide <\/p>\n
    application (Exh.61) produced the copy of notice given under <\/p>\n
    Order 12 Rule 8 of C.P.C. to the plaintiffs.  The copy of the said <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
    notice is at page No.103 in file ‘D’.  By this notice, the plaintiffs <\/p>\n
    were called upon to produce the original.  The original was not <\/p>\n
    produced  inspite   of   the   notice.     PW   1   Parmesh  was  asked   a <\/p>\n
    question as to whether he has produced the original deed and <\/p>\n
    he answered in the negative.   He even says that he does not <\/p>\n
    know anything about the partition-deed.   It is thus clear that <\/p>\n
    defendants did call upon the plaintiffs to produce the original <\/p>\n
    but   the   plaintiffs   failed.     Therefore,   the   defendants   were <\/p>\n
    justified   in   showing   the   Photostat   copy   of   the   registered <\/p>\n
    partition   to   PW   2   Balmukund   during   his   cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
    PW 2 Balmukund admits in cross-examination his signature on <\/p>\n
    the said document as a attesting witness.   He even proves the <\/p>\n
    signature of the executants of the said document. Thus, if the <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs feign ignorance about the partition-deed and do not <\/p>\n
    produce   the   original,   the   defendants  ought   to   be   allowed   to <\/p>\n
    lead secondary evidence.   From the admission of PW 2 of his <\/p>\n
    signature and proving the signature of the executants on the <\/p>\n
    partition-deed, it could be said that the partition-deed was, in <\/p>\n
    fact,   proved.     The   learned   judges   of   both   the   courts   below <\/p>\n
    failed to take into consideration this material piece of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
    There   is   other   evidence   available   even   if   the   above   one   is <\/p>\n
    ignored which I say cannot be.  Kesharbai\/defendant no.4 had <\/p>\n
    executed a sale-deed Exh.76 in favour of Ramrao Nikam and <\/p>\n
    Namdeo Deshmukh on 4\/5\/1973.  This sale-deed is in respect <\/p>\n
    of southern portion of survey No.78\/2.  In this sale-deed there <\/p>\n
    is   a   recital   about   the   field   having   fallen   to   her   share   in   the <\/p>\n
    registered partition dated 21\/4\/1972.   Similarly, Laxmibai had <\/p>\n
    also executed a sale-deed (Exh.77) on 2\/5\/1973 in favour of <\/p>\n
    the   above   two   persons.     This   sale-deed   is   of   the   Northern <\/p>\n
    portion   of   Field   S.No.78\/2.     In   this   sale-deed   also   it   is <\/p>\n
    mentioned that this northern portion had fallen to the share of <\/p>\n
    Laxmibai in the registered partition dated 21\/4\/1972.   Thus, <\/p>\n
    both these recitals in the sale-deeds executed by Kesharbai and <\/p>\n
    Laxmibai make a reference to partition between Laxmibai and <\/p>\n
    Kesharbai.   Not only there is a reference to the partition-deed <\/p>\n
    but there is a consent by the plaintiffs and defendant no.5 to <\/p>\n
    the   execution   of   the   sale-deeds.     For   execution   of   sale-deed <\/p>\n
    (Exh.76), plaintiff no.2\/Parmesh, no.3 Ramesh and defendant <\/p>\n
    no.5   Mulchand  –   sons   of   Ambalal   and  Kesharbai   have   given <\/p>\n
    consent.     Similarly,   for  execution   of  the   sale-deed  Exh.77   by <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
    Laxmibai,   her  husband  i.e.   plaintiff  no.1   Lalchand  had  given <\/p>\n
    consent.     Both   sale-deeds   bear   their   signatures.     Even   the <\/p>\n
    registered   partition-deed   bears   signature   of   plaintiff   no.1   as <\/p>\n
    attesting witness. Inspite of the fact that Lalchand signed the <\/p>\n
    registered partition-deed, he  joins the suit as  a plaintiff  no.1 <\/p>\n
    and   falsely   contends   that   there   was   no   partition   at   all.\n<\/p>\n
    Similarly, the other plaintiffs though signed sale-deed by way of <\/p>\n
    consent,   which   contains   a   recital   of   partition   and   Kesharbai <\/p>\n
    being full owner they have a courage to take an absolutely false <\/p>\n
    plea that there was never  a partition.  I may reproduce here an <\/p>\n
    important   recital   in   Exh.76,   which   goes   to   show   why   the <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs and defendant no.4 Kesharbai’s son signed the sale-\n<\/p>\n
    deed.\n<\/p>\n
            \";ka l h       la i Rrhpk     ys [ k fygq u ns . kkj jes ' k\n\n            va c kykyth        othj       o    ijes ' oj    va c kykyth\n\n\n\n\n\n            othj       o      eq y pa n    va c kykyth     othj]       jk-\n\n<\/pre>\n
            mejkorh la i Rrhpk ys [ k fygw u ns r ks dh] rq E gh<\/p>\n
            ojhy ds ‘ kj           tots va c kykyth othj fgps<\/p>\n
            toGw u ojhy ‘ks r rq E gh fodr                 ?ks r ys vkgs –\n<\/p>\n
            ojiz e k.ks jft”V\u00aa j okV.kh i=kiz e k.ks rs ‘ks r<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:40 :::<\/span>
\n                                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
             frps p     fgLL;kyk     vkys y s    vkgs ]    vkepk        R;k<\/p>\n
             ‘ks r kr gDd ukgh-        rqEgka l vkeps gDdkfo”k;h<\/p>\n
             la ‘ k; vkgs Eg.kw u vkEgh rq e ps [kjs n h[krkl<\/p>\n
             foukeks c nyk la e rh ns r vkgks r –          vkEgh gDd<\/p>\n
             oxS j s nk[kfo.kkj ukgh-           nk[kfoY;kl rks jnn~<\/p>\n
             vls d#u gh fpBB~ h lea r hlg fygq u fnyh<\/p>\n
             vkgs – ”\n<\/p>\n
    This   goes   to   show   that   the   purchaser   had   a   doubt   and   was <\/p>\n
    apprehensive about exclusive title of Kesharbai and therefore, <\/p>\n
    he   insisted   on   plaintiffs   nos.2   and   3   and   defendant   no.5   in <\/p>\n
    joining the sale-deed as consenting party.   This recital clearly <\/p>\n
    shows   that   the   plaintiffs   and   defendant   no.5   accepted   the <\/p>\n
    partition and right of Kesharbai and gave formal consent to sell <\/p>\n
    the   property.     The   learned   Judges   of   the   courts   below   have <\/p>\n
    failed to read the documents on record and ignored the best <\/p>\n
    piece of evidence available on record once again.  There is thus <\/p>\n
    more   than   enough   proof   of   there   being   a   partition   and <\/p>\n
    Kesharbai being full and exclusive owner of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
    This was all to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and defendant <\/p>\n
    no.5.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:40 :::<\/span>
\n                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
    14.        All   this   evidence   is   further   corroborated   by   certain <\/p>\n
    entries in revenue record.  Exh.98 is a crop statement.  It shows <\/p>\n
    that survey No.58\/2 is in the name of Laxmibai and Kesharbai <\/p>\n
    in   equal   proportion   but   separate.     Exh.99   and   100   are   the <\/p>\n
    copies of the Ferfar register i.e. mutation register.  It speaks of <\/p>\n
    separate mutation upon partition amongst them.  Although the <\/p>\n
    entry is not finally certified, the fact remains that cognizance of <\/p>\n
    partition was taken and separate sub-divisions were given, as <\/p>\n
    can   be   seen   from   column   no.11.     Unnecessarily,   more <\/p>\n
    weightage   is   attached   to   entry   not   being   certified   forgetting <\/p>\n
    that   an   intimation   of   partition   was   given   to   the   revenue <\/p>\n
    authorities.   In the circumstances, I find that the courts below <\/p>\n
    completely   misdirected   themselves   and   ignored   the   evidence <\/p>\n
    available altogether.   The findings are, therefore, liable to be <\/p>\n
    set aside as being perverse.   The substantial questions of law <\/p>\n
    are answered accordingly.  Since I find that there was partition <\/p>\n
    between Laxmibai and Kesharbai,  Kesharbai had become full <\/p>\n
    owner of the property.   The plaintiffs and defendant no.5 as <\/p>\n
    well defendant no.4 were fully aware of this partition which is <\/p>\n
    a registered document.  It was acted upon by the plaintiffs and <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:40 :::<\/span>
\n                                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
    defendant No.5.  They are estopped from saying that there was <\/p>\n
    no partition.  Kesharbai could validly transfer the suit property <\/p>\n
    to defendant nos.1 to 3.  They have become full owner of the <\/p>\n
    property.  Resultantly the appeal is allowed and the judgments <\/p>\n
    and decree passed by the courts below are set aside.  The suit is <\/p>\n
    dismissed.     The   appeal   is   allowed   with   costs   throughout.   I <\/p>\n
    would also saddle compensatory costs on the plaintiffs of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    2000\/- for having raised an absolutely plea.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
    chute<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:40 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Second Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010 Bench: C. L. Pangarkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO.354 OF 1996. APPELLANTS : 1. Nandkishore Shamrao Daphe, aged about 37 years. 2. Shobha w\/o Nandkishore Daphe, aged about 35 years, 3. […]<\/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-92081","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSecond Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010 - 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\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Second Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-05T13:18:42+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Second Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-05T13:18:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2600,\"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\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Second Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-05T13:18:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Second Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Second Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010 - 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\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Second Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-05T13:18:42+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Second Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-05T13:18:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010"},"wordCount":2600,"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\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010","name":"Second Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-05T13:18:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-354-of-1996-vs-unknown-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Second Appeal No.354 Of 1996 vs Unknown on 22 April, 2010"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/92081","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=92081"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92081\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92081"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92081"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92081"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}