Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR Mr. Samarth Kashyap, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR

What is the legal consequence of excluding Sl. No. 2 from partition in a coparcenary dispute? What is the distinction between entitlement in a share determined after partition versus notional partition in a Hindu mitakshara coparcenary? What is the proper approach to determine whether Sl. No. 2 constitutes coparcenary property or self-acquired property?

Key Points: - The exclusion of Sl. No. 2 from partition is upheld as illegal and not part of coparcenary property. (!) (!) - The judgment distinguishes entitlement after partition from notional partition, and cautions against applying post-partition entitlements to coparcenary shares. (!) - Sl. No. 2 is held to be self-acquired by Appellant No. 1 and not coparcenary property; thus not available for partition. (!) (!) - The trial court's preliminary decree is modified to exclude Sl. No. 2 from partition; other items (Sl. Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5) remain in the decree. (!) - The High Court’s modifications granting broader shares are set aside to the extent they include Sl. No. 2; overall appeal partly allowed. (!) (!) - The court confirms that Sl. Nos. 3 and 4 do not form part of coparcenary and require evidence; certain defects in gift/deed proof affect rights in those items. (!) (!) (!) - The decision discusses evidentiary requirements for transfer deeds (Section 12 Transfer of Property Act, Section 68 Evidence Act) and attestation, impacting proof of self-acquired status. (!) (!) - The crux is whether the properties described in Sl. No. 2 are ancestral or self-acquired based on flow of title and prior transfers. (!) - The case cites and distinguishes Gurupad Khandappa Magdum and related authorities, noting not applying them to extend coparcenary share for Sl. Nos. 1 and 5. (!) (!) - Final outcome: Appeals allowed in part; Sl. No. 2 excluded from partition; preliminary decree revised accordingly. (!)

What is the legal consequence of excluding Sl. No. 2 from partition in a coparcenary dispute?

What is the distinction between entitlement in a share determined after partition versus notional partition in a Hindu mitakshara coparcenary?

What is the proper approach to determine whether Sl. No. 2 constitutes coparcenary property or self-acquired property?