Bombay High Court
Sukhdeo Khushalrao Kalpande Thr. His ... vs Ramesh Wasudeorao Navsalkar And Others on 29 June, 2017
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
sa300.03n301.03.odt 1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO.300 OF 2003
APPELLANT: Sukhdeo S/o Suryabhan Hadole, Aged
(Original Defendant about 74 years, Occu. Cultivator, R/o
No.1 on R.A.) Somwarves, Akot, Tq. & Distt. Akot.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Smt. Shantabai Wd/o Sitaram Nawale
(L.Rs of Original Plaintiff (Since dead, by L.Rs.)
on R.A.)
i) Sahebrao Sitaram Nawale,
aged about 45 yrs, Occ. Cultivator,
ii) Shankar Sitaram Nawale,
aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Cultivator,
iii) Vinayak Sitaram Nawale,
aged about 35 yrs, Occ. Cultivator,
iv) Gopal Sitaram Nawale,
aged about 25 yrs, Occ. Cultivator,
v) Sau. Mangalabai w/o Ramkrishna
Bansod, aged about 30 years,
Occ. Housework,
All R/o Akot, Tq. Akot, Distt. Akola.
Original Plaintiff No.2 2. Smt. Shewantabai Wd/o Wamanrao
on R.A.
Huse, Aged 62 yrs., Occu. Cultivator,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt.
Buldana.
L.Rs of Original 3. Ramrao S/o Narayan Hadole (since
Plaintiff No.3 on R.A.
dead by L.Rs)
i) Smt. Vimalbai Ramrao Hadole,
Aged 45 years, Occ. Household,
ii) Dipak Ramrao Hadole,
Aged 28 years, Occ. Cultivator,
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:39 :::
sa300.03n301.03.odt 2/11
iii) Nilesh Ramrao Hadole,
Aged 25 years, Occ. Cultivator,
iv) Ku. Shubhangi d/o Ramrao Hadole,
Aged 21 years, Occ. Education,
All R/o Somwarves, Devdarpura Akot,
Tq. Akot, Distt. Akola.
L.Rs of Original 4. Pandurang Suryabhan Hadole (since
Plaintiff No.4 on R.A.
dead by L.Rs)
Second Appeal abates. i) Smt. Shewantabai Wd/o Pandurang
Hadole.
ii) Devendra S/o Pandurang Hadole,
Aged about 40 yrs., Occu.Cultivator,
iii) Ravindra S/o Pandurang Hadole,
Aged about 35 yrs., Occ. Cultivator Lrs
I) to iii) R/o Deodarpara, Akot Distt.
Akot.
iv) Sau. Anjanabai w/o Shrikrishna
Revaskar, aged adult, Occ. Household,
R/o Shaniwarpura, Akot, Dist. Akola.
v) Sau. Nirmalbai Shankarrao Nathe,
Aged adult, Occ. Household,
R/o Somwanves, Akot, Dist. Akola.
vi) Sau. Mangalabai w/o Prabhakarrao
Lahane, Aged adult, Occ. Household,
R/o Akolkhed, Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
Vii) Sau. Devkanyabai W/o Vithalrao Pawar,
Aged adult, Occ. Household R/o Kakada
(Kolha Kakada) Tq. Achalpur, Distt.
Amravati.
L.Rs of Original 5. Bainabai Wd/o Suryabhan Jawarkar
Plaintiff No.5 on R.A.
(Since dead by L.Rs)
i) Sau. Sushilabai W/o Uttamrao Ravaskar,
Aged 76, Occ. Housework
ii) Sau. Savatrabai Deorao Belokar,
Aged 73 yrs., Occ. Housework,
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:39 :::
sa300.03n301.03.odt 3/11
iii) Keshaorao Suryabhan Jawarkar,
Aged 70 yrs., Occ. Cultivator
iv) Ramrao Suryabhan Jawarkar,
Aged 55 yrs., Occ. Cultivator
v) Sheshrao Suryabhan Jawarkar,
Aged 68 yrs., Occ. Cultivator,
All R/o Akot, Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
S.A. Dismissed. vi) Vimal Tulshiram Navkar,
Aged 45 yrs., Occ. Housework,
R/o Gopal Colony, Near Janata
Printing Press, Akola.
vii) Suman Onkar Fuse,
Aged 48 yrs., Occ. Housework,
R/o Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
Original Plaintiffs No.6 6. Dhrupadabai Wd/o Jairam Nathe, aged
& 7 on R.A.
78 yrs, Occ. Cultivator.
7. Alokabai w/o Shalikram Bale,
Aged 67 yrs., Occ. Cultivator,
Respondents No.6 to 7 both R/o
Somwarves, Akot, Distt. Akola.
Shri D. R. Khapre Advocate with Shri R. L. Khapre, Advocate for
the appellant.
AND
SECOND APPEAL NO.301 OF 2003
APPELLANT: Sukhdeo S/o Suryabhan Hadole, Aged
(Original Defendant about 74 years, Occu. Cultivator, R/o
No.1 on R.A.) Somwarves, Akot, Tq. & Distt. Akot.
-VERSUS-
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:39 :::
sa300.03n301.03.odt 4/11
RESPONDENTS: 1. Smt. Shantabai Wd/o Sitaram
(L.Rs of Original Plaintiff Nawale (Since dead, by L.Rs.)
on R.A.)
2. Shewantabai Wd/o Wamanrao Huse,
Aged 62 yrs., Occ. Cultivator, R/o
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt.
Buldhana.
3. Ramrao S/o Narayan Hadole, Aged
62 yrs, Occ. Cultivator, R/o
Somwarves, Akot, Tq. & Distt. Akola.
Original Plaintiff Nos.2 & 4. Pandurang Suryavhan Hadole,
3 on R.A.
1-A
R-1(i) Sahebrao Sitaram Nawale,
Aged about 45 yrs., Occ. Cultivator,
R-1(ii) Shankar Sitaram Nawale,
Asged about 40 yrs, Occ. Cultivator,
R-1(iii) Vinayak Sitaram Nawale,
Aged about 35 yrs, Occ. Cultivator,
R-1(iv) Gopal Sitaram Nawale,
Aged about 25 yrs, Occ. Cultivator,
R-1(v) Sau. Mangalabai w/o Ramkrishna
Bansod, Aged about 30 years, Occ.
Housework,
All R/o Akot, Tq. Akot, Distt. Akola.
1-B
R-3(i) Smt. Vimalbai Ramrao Hadole,
Aged 45 years, Occ. Household,
R-3(ii) Dipak Ramrao Hadole,
Aged 28 years, Occ. Cultivator,
R-3(iii) Nilesh Ramrao Hadole,
Aged 25 years, Occ. Cultivator,
R-3(iv) Ku. Shubhangi d/o Ramrao Hadole,
Aged 21 years, Occ. Education,
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:39 :::
sa300.03n301.03.odt 5/11
All R/o Somwarves, Devdarpura
Akot, Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
1-C
L.Rs. Of deceased respondent No.4.
R-4(i) Smt. Shewantabai wd/o Pandurang
Hadole, aged 60 yrs, Occ. Household,
R-4(ii) Devendra S/o Pandurang Hadole,
Aged about 40 yrs., Occ. Cultivator,
R-4(iii) Ravindra S/o Pandurang Hadole,
Aged about 35 yrs., Occ. Cultivator,
Lrs I) to iii) R/o Deodarpara, Akot,
Distt. Akot.
R-4(iv) Sau. Anjanabai w/o Shrikrishna
Revaskar, aged adult, Occ.
Household,
R/o Shaniwarpura, Akot, Distt.
Akola.
R-4(v) Sau. Nirmalabai Shankarrao Nathe,
Aged adult, Occ. Household,
R/o Somwanves, Akot, Dist. Akola.
R-4(vi) Sau. Mangalabai w/o Prabhakarrao
Lahane, Aged adult, Occ. Household
R/o Akolkhed, Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
R-4(vii) Sau. Devkanyabai W/o Vithalrao
Pawar, Aged adult, Occ. Household
R/o Kakada (Kolha Kakada) Tq.
Achalpur, Distt. Amravati.
5. Bainabai Wd/o Suryabhan Jawarkar,
Aged about 80 yrs,
Occu: Cultivator
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 both
Residents of : Somwarves, Tq. Akot,
Distt. Akot.
LEGAL HEIRS OF RESPONDENT
NO.5
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:39 :::
sa300.03n301.03.odt 6/11
R-5(i) Sau. Sushilabai w/o Uttamrao
Ravskar,
Aged about 76 years, Occ:Household
work,
R-5(ii) Sau. Savatrabai Deorao Belokar,
Aged about 73 years, Occ: Household
work,
R-5(iii) Keshaorao Suryabhan Jawarkar,
Aged about 70 years, Occ: Cultivator,
R-5(iv) Ramrao Suryabhan Jawarkar,
Aged about 55 years, Occ:Cultivator,
R-5(v) Sheshrao Suryabhan Jawarkar,
Aged about 68 years, Occ: Cultivator,
All R/o Akot, Tq. Akot, Distt. Akola.
R-5(vi) Vimal Tulshiram Navkar,
Aged about 45 years, Occ:Household
Work, R/o Gopal Colony, Near Janta
Printing Press, Akola.
R-4(vii) Suman Onkar Fuse,
Aged about 48 years, Occ:Household
Work,
Both r/o Shegaon, Distt. Buldhana.
Original Defendant 6. Dhrupadabai Wd/o Jairam Nathe,
No.2 & 3 on R.A.
aged 78 yrs, Occ. Cultivator
7. Alokabai w/o Shalikram Bale,
Aged 67 yrs, Occ. Cultivator,
Respondents No.6 and 7 both R/o
Somwarves, Akot, Tq. & Distt. Akot.
Shri D. R. Khapre Advocate with Shri R. L. Khapre, Advocate for
the appellant.
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 29
th JUNE, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:39 :::
sa300.03n301.03.odt 7/11
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The following substantial questions of law were framed while admitting both the appeals:
(1) Whether the Courts were justified in holding that each of the parties were entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property by ignoring the rule of notional partition as laid down in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
(2) Whether every party to the litigation was entitled to seek a share in 1/5th share of Kasabai receivable by her on notional partition when admittedly, the plaintiff no.1, the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff no.3 were step sons and daughters of Sarjabai and were not entitled to seek any share in her property?
2. The appellant in Second Appeal No.300 of 2003 is the original defendant No.1 in Regular Civil Suit No.192/1993. This suit was filed by the original plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of the joint family property. One Suryabhan is the common ancestor who received Survey No.591/2 in a partition in May 1959. Suryabhan expired in January, 1974. He was survived by the plaintiffs as well as the defendant Nos.1 to 3. On that basis, suit for partition and separate possession came to be filed by two sons and a sister. ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:39 ::: sa300.03n301.03.odt 8/11 The defendant no.1 took the stand that the plaintiffs had no right in the suit property and that he had occupied the same during the life time of his father Suryabhan. The other defendants also filed their written statement.
3. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence led by the parties held that the suit property was joint family property and that each party was entitled for 1/6th share therein. The suit accordingly was decreed. The appeal filed by the defendant no.1 was also dismissed.
4. Shri D. R. Khapre, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts erred in calculating the shares of the plaintiffs and the defendants. According to him, Suryabhan was survived by three sons being the plaintiff nos.1 and 2 and defendant no.1. They also had three sisters. On the death of Suryabhan his notional share would have to be worked out and accordingly, the coparcenars would get 1/4th share each. The daughters would only get a share from that of their father Suryabhan. Thus, according to learned Counsel, equal 1/6th share could not have been granted to all the parties. In that regard, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anar Devi and Ors. vs. Parmeshwari Devi & Ors AIR 2006 SC 3332. He further ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:39 ::: sa300.03n301.03.odt 9/11 submitted that the amendment to provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would not apply to the case in hand because the father Suryabvhan had already expired in the year 1974.
5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents though they are duly served. However, with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the records of the case and I have given due consideration to the submissions as made.
6. The finding that the suit property was joint family property is a finding which is recorded on the basis of the evidence on record. This finding is not arrived at in any perverse manner. The only question that requires determination is the respective shares of the parties. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. On the death of Suryabhan in 1974, a notional partition would have to be worked out by which each coparcenar including Suyabhan would get 1/4th share. The plaintiff No.3 and defendant Nos.2 & 3 being the daughters of Suyabhan they would get their share in his property along with the shares of their brothers. They would, therefore, get 1/6th share each from the 1/4th share of Suyabhan. The Hon'ble Supreme ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:39 ::: sa300.03n301.03.odt 10/11 Court in Anar Devi (supra) has held that pursuant to notional partition, the undivided interest of the deceased would be divided amongst other members and the shares would be worked out in that manner. Similarly, the amendment to provisions to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and would not apply as Suryabhan had expired in 1974.
7. Both the Courts, therefore, committed error while determining the share of the parties. The trial Court awarded a greater share to the daughters and lesser share to the sons ignoring the aforesaid position.
8. In so far as Second Appeal No.301 of 2003 is concerned, the appellant is the plaintiff who had filed suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with this position. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court and said judgment was affirmed by the appellate Court. However, once the shares of the parties are determined, their rights would be governed by said adjudication.
9. In view of aforesaid, the substantial question of law as framed is answered by holding that Suryabhan and his three sons would be entitled to 1/4th share each while the daughters would be entitled for 1/6th share in the share of Suryabhan. In other words, they would get 1/24th share each ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:39 ::: sa300.03n301.03.odt 11/11 while the sons would get 7/24th share each.
10. The decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.192/1993 is accordingly partly modified. Second Appeal No.300 of 2003 is accordingly partly allowed.
11. In so far as the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.119/1993 is concerned, the direction to recover the amount of Rs.2400/- is set aside on the count that this aspect would be considered while determining mesne profits. Second Appeal No.301/2003 is disposed of in aforesaid terms. There would be no order as to costs.
JUDGE /MULEY/ ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:39 :::