This Court in the matter of Laxmibai
and others vrs. Limbabai, reported in 1983 Mh.L.J.103, has
recorded a finding that the children born out of the marriage
which is void cannot be termed illegitimate one and they are
covered by the expression ‘son and daughter - class-I' for
Scheduled 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATER JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 269 OF 1992
Shri Vishnu Laxman Padule Vs Laxman Rama Padule,
CORAM: N.W.SAMBRE, J .
DATE : 9 JANUARY, 2020.
Citation: 2021(2) MHLJ 288
1] This appeal is by original plaintiff. Rama was a
common ancestor who was married to Karabai. The couple
was blessed with four issues, Laxman – Defendant No.1,
Sahebrao – Defendant No.6, Tanubai – Defendant No.7 and
Sonabai – Defendant No.8.
2] Laxman claimed to have married to Shantabai –
plaintiff No.2 and was blessed with son Vishnu. It is the case
of the appellant-plaintiff that defendant No.1 drove away
plaintiff No.2 and started residing with defendant No.2
Shantabai. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are the sons born to
defendant No.2.
3] Since the plaintiff Shantabai and her son Vishnu
were not permitted to draw income from the ancestral
property consisting of Gat No. 323 and Gat No. 287 situated
at village Raogaon, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur, initiated
Regular Civil Suit No. 19/1975 for partition and separate
possession.
4] The suit came to be partly decreed vide
judgment and order dated 31st March, 1987, thereby allowing
the partition of Gat No. 287, thereby declaring 1/6th share to
each of the appellants, whereas the claim for partition of Gat
No. 323 was dismissed.
5] The appellant feeling aggrieved preferred
Regular Civil Appeal before the Court of learned Additional
District Judge Solapur. The appeal came to be partly
allowed, thereby modifying the shares of the appellants to the
extent of entitlement of 1/3rd instead of 1/6th in land Gat/Block
No. 287.
6] As such this appeal is by the original plaintiff,
questioning the dismissal of their claim for partition of land
Gat No. 323.
7] Heard the respective counsel. The submissions
of learned counsel for appellant Shri Aradhey is, land Gat No.
323 was initially owned by deceased Rama, who died on
21.12.1950. The said property was transferred on 23.05.1950
in favour of one Namdeo Tukaram Dhakate. The land
thereafter in 1950-51 was cultivated by one Shantaram
Jadhav. The respondent No.1 – Laxman claimed to have
started cultivating the land as a Karta of the joint family since
1953-54 and as he was in cultivating possession of the suit
property i.e. Gat No. 323 on tillers day i.e. 01.04.1957, the
sale certificate came to be issued under Section 32(m) of the
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. According to
him, once the respondent No.1 was cultivating Gat No. 323 in
the capacity of Karta and the property was purchased out of
the income drawn from the cultivation of Gat No. 287 (-)
which is admittedly an ancestral property, both the Courts
below have committed an error in answering the issue in
relation to land Gat No. 323 as self acquired property of
respondent No.1. Shri Aradhye then would urge that the
provisions of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act will not be attracted in the case in
hand and as such the embargo on partitioning such land will
not operate against the appellant. The further contention of
Shri Aradhye is, once it is held that the original defendant
No.2 is not legally wedded wife of defendant No.1, they ought
not to have granted any share to defendant Nos. 2 to 5 in the
suit property. As such, according to Shri Aradhye, the
judgments impugned are required to be set aside thereby
decreeing the suit of the appellant in its entirety.
8] The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3
would support both the judgments. According to him, against
the concurrent findings the present appeal is preferred which
is liable to be dismissed as there is no merit in the appeal.
9] With the assistance of respective learned
counsel, I have perused the entire record and proceedings.
10] As the respondents have come out with the case
that Gat No. 323 is not the ancestral property, but was a self
acquired property of defendant No.1, the Court below rightly
shifted the burden on the respondent No.1 to prove that land
Gat No. 323 is not an ancestral property.
11] The trial Court framed the issues at Exh. 22 as
under and were answered accordingly.
1] Whether the defendent no.1 prove that
defendant no.2 is his legally wedded wife
and that defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 are his
legitimate sons?
In the
negative
2] Whether the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 prove
that the suit land gat no. 323 is the
ancestral property of the defendant No.1?
In the
affirmative
3] Whether the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 prove
that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim
any share in the suit land Gat No. 323?
In the
affirmative
4] Whether the plaintiffs prove that they
have 1/3 share in the suit property?
Plaintiffs
have 1/6th
share in
Gat No.
287 only
5] Whether the plaintiffs prove that
defendants denied to allot shares to
plaintiffs in partition in response to the
plaintiff's notice dated 9.9.1974?
In the
affirmative
6] Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
separate possession of their share by
partitioning?
In the
affirmative
only as
regard Gat
No.287.
7] Whether the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 prove
that the suit is bad for non joinder of
necessary parties ?
Does not
survive
8] Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
mesne profit?
In the Gat
No.287
affirmative
as regards.
9] What order and decree ? The suit is
partly
decreed.
10] Do plaintiffs prove that they have right
to file this suit for partition?
In the
affirmative
11] Is the suit barred by B.P. and P.H. Act? In the
negative
12] Is the suit of plaintiffs in respect of Gat
No. 323 barred by Bombay Tenancy Act?
In the
affirmative
13] Does the defendant No.6 prove that
there took place partition in between
plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 6 and he
has got 1/2 share in all the suit properties?
In the
negative
14] Does he further prove that the
defendant no.2 is concubine of defendant
No.1 and defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are the
sons of defendatn No.2 and born to
defendant no.1?
In the
negative
15] Do plaintiffs prove that land Gat No.323
was obtained under the provisions of
Tenancy Act by the joint family of the
plaintiffs and defendants ?
In the
negative
16] Whether defendnt No. 7 and 8 have got
any share in the suit property ?
In the
negative
17] Do defendant No. 1 to 5 prove that they
have expended Rs.9000/- for the
improvement of land Gat No. 323?
In the
negative
12] It is established through the evidence of respective
parties that land Gat No. 323 was an ancestral property of the
plaintiffs and the defendants. Said property was mortgaged to
Namdeo and was in possession of the respondent – defendant
No.1. In his evidence plaintiff No.2/Appellant has admitted that
deceased Rama sold the suit property Gat No. 323 to Namdeo
vide sale deed dated 23rd May, 1950 - Exh.99 and the possession
thereof stood handed over to said Namdeo.
13] From the evidence of the respective parties, it has
come on record that respondent No.1 started cultivating the said
8 sa269.92.odt
land as a tenant of Namdeo with effect from 1953-54 and
continued to be in possession on tillers day i.e. 1st April, 1957.
14] Pursuant to proceedings taken out under the
provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the
land was purchased by defendant No.1 on 20th August, 1960, as
there is Section 32(m) proceedings answered in favour of
respondent No.1. Both the Courts below noticed that respondent
No.1 continued in possession of Gat No. 323 from 1953 onwards
and was earning independently from the suit property and as
such adjudicated the said property Gat No. 323 as that of self
acquired property of respondent No.1.
15] Apart from above, the fact remains that the
provisions of Section 43 of the said Act reads thus –
"(1) No land purchased by a tenant under Section 32,
32F, (32-I, 32P) (33-C or 43-1D) or sold to any person
under Sec. 32-P or 64 shall be transferred by sale,
gift, exchange, mortgage, sale or assignment or
partitioned without the previous sanction of the
Collector (such sanction shall be given by the
Collector in such circumstances, and suject to such
conditions, as may be prescribed by the State
Government"
16] As such the property cannot be subjected to partition
though a claim to that effect is made by the appellant without
there being any permission from the Collector to that effect.
17] Apart from above, the Courts below have relied on
the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, particularly Section 8 of
the Hindu Succession Act. This Court in the matter of Laxmibai
and others vrs. Limbabai, reported in 1983 Mh.L.J.103, has
recorded a finding that the children born out of the marriage
which is void cannot be termed illegitimate one and they are
covered by the expression ‘son and daughter - class-I' for
Scheduled 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
18] Apart from above, fact remains that even though the
claim for partition was consented by the defendant No. 6 who
happens to be brother of defendant No.1, that by itself will not
entitle the appellant to claim partition of Gat No. 323, which was
already held to be self acquired property of defendant No.1.
19] In view of the defence raised by defendant No.1, the
burden was shifted on defendant Nos. 1 to 5 to prove the fact that
it was their self acquired property, which they have rightly
discharged.
20] The first appellant Court while reconsidering the
claim of the appellant for the share to the extent of 1/3rd in Gat
No. 287 has considered the entitlement of defendant No.6 to the
suit property being brother of defendant No.1 and as such rightly
carved out 1/3rd share in favour of the appellants.
21] In the aforesaid background, the concurrent findings
which are recorded by both the Courts below are based on
proper appreciation of legal provision and the documentary
evidence, so also the legal provisions under the provisions of
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, Hindu Marriage Act
and Hindu Succession Act.
22] In my opinion, no case for interference against the
concurrent findings is made out. The appeal as such fails. It is
dismissed.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment