Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Gangubai Raghunath Ayare – Appellant
Versus
Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) through LRs. and Others (R1 to R8) – Respondents
R1: Anandi Gangaram Dhuri (D) through LRs. (R2 to R8)
R2: Sunanda Gangaram Dhuri
R3: Vaishali Vilas Majalkar
R4: Kavita Kashiram Ugave
R5: Vithal Gangaram Dhuri
R6: Mangesh Gangaram Dhuri
R7: Babaji Gangaram Dhuri
R8: Geeta Subhash Baraskar
R9: Laxmibai Vishnu Shelar Ladubai Mahadev Rane (D) through LRs. (R10 to R13)
R10: Hemlata Arjun Tawde
R11: Pratibha Sawant
R12: Supriya Pawar
R13: Sunanda Rane
R14: Shantabai Mahadev Ayare (D)
R15: Pushpa Prabhakar Gudekar (LR of R14)
R16: Tai Shankar Pawar
Civil Appeal No. 3183 of 2009
Decided On : 17-03-2025
Property Law – Suit for Administration of Estate of Deceased – When principal prayer for administration of estate was rejected by Trial Court, that too as non-maintainable, any other prayer which indirectly seeks partition cannot be granted, until proper parties are impleaded in suit – Plaintiff’s sisters have not filed any suit seeking their share in suit property – Specifically, on the facts of this case, on passing away of brother of plaintiff during pendency of suit, only his wife was brought on record, whereas his sons and daughters were not impleaded into suit by Plaintiff – Plaintiff cannot be disturbed with her possession until suit property is partitioned in accordance with law – second defendant shall only have 1/5th share in the suit property – Considering passage of time of half a century and current scenario where parties are represented through their legal heirs, Trial Court concerned shall positively endeavour to decide partition suit, if so filed, within three months from date of filing thereof. [Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 44] (Paras 24, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 20/21.02.20071 in First Appeal No.116 of 1988 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, reversing Judgment and Decree dated 18/19.09.1987 passed by the City Civil Court.
Findings of Court:
Considering that LRs to be brought on record are already arrayed as parties to this appeal, both I.A.s are allowed, thereby condoning delay, setting aside abatement, and bringing the LRs on record on behalf of first respondent herein, who passed away on 28.09.2018, as per Death Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
Result : Civil Appeal disposed of with observations and directions.
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel and senior counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. The present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 20/21.02.20071 [2007 SCC OnLine Bom 144 : (2007) 5 Mah LJ 136 : (2007) 5 Bom CR 306] in First Appeal No. 116 of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) passed by a learned Single Judge (as he then was) of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, reversing Judgment and Decree dated 18/19.09.1987 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in Suit No. 2060 of 1970.
3. At the outset, it is gainful to take note of the position of the contesting parties before the respective Courts, as under:
| Name | Trial Court | High Court | This Court |
| Gangubai Raghunath Ayare | Plaintiff | Respondent No. 1 | Appellant |
| Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri | Defendant No. 2 | Appellants No. 1- 8 (Died - Represented by LRs.) [The abbreviation expands to Legal Representatives] | Respondents No. 1-8 |
| Vishnu Shelar | Defendant No. 1 (Died during pendency of the suit - Represented by his widow Laxmibai Vishnu Shelar) | Respondent No. 2 | Respondent No. 9 |
| Ladubai Mahadev Rana | Defendant No. 3 | Respondent No. 3 [Died - Represented by LRs 3(A) to 3(D)] | Respondents No. 10-13 |
| Shantabai Mahadev Ayare | Defendant No. 4 | Respondent No. 4 [Died - Represented by LR 4(a)] | Respondents No. 14 and 15 |
| Tai Shankar Pawar | Defendant No. 5 | Respondent No. 5 | Respondent No. 16 |
| 1 Defendant No. 1 is the real brother of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3-5. 2 Defendant No. 2 is the purchaser as per the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No. 1. | |||
FACTUAL SCENARIO:
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status before the Trial Court.
5. The dispute in the suit pertains to property bearing C.T.S. No. 1048 admeasuring 398.5 square yards altogether, with a building thereon by the name ‘Sai Niwas’ situated at Bandra, Bombay - 50 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’).
6. One Gangaram Thakoji Shelar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was the exclusive owner of the suit property. The deceased passed away on 13.05.1967. At the time of his death, the deceased was survived by his widow Sunderbai, his son Vishnu and four daughters namely, the Plaintiff and the third to fifth defendants, who were his only legal heirs and representatives.
7. The Plaintiff stated that the deceased was the absolute owner of the suit property. It is stated that one of the rooms i.e. Room No. 1 in the suit property was let out to Raghunath Narayan Ayare, the Plaintiff’s husband on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. The Plaintiff, with her husband and her family members, have been occupying Room No. 1, as tenant(s) thereof, during the lifetime of the deceased. It is stated that after the death of the deceased, Vishnu, being the only male member in the family and also the Plaintiff’s and the third to fifth defendants’ brother, started managing the affairs of and looking after the suit property.
8. The Plaintiff contends that her brother, Vishnu, had, in the course of management of the suit property, obtained her as well as her sisters’ signatures, on some blank papers, including for the purpose of effecting transfer thereof in the public record in the names of all the legal heirs.
9. According to the Plaintiff, her husband received Letter dated 10.01.1969 sent to him by the second defendant alleging that the Plaintiff was in possession of Room No. 1 in the suit property as a licensee of Vishnu. According to the Plaintiff, she learnt, for the first time, from the said Letter that Vishnu had sold ½ portion of the suit property to the second defendant based on the Relinquishment Deed dated 11.12.1967, purportedly executed by
Suit for administration of estate of deceased – Possession of Plaintiff cannot be disturbed until suit property is partitioned in accordance with law.
The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed for family and legal necessity by a joint family member is binding, barring challenge by family members after significant delay without sufficient cause....
The court affirmed that a Sale Deed is valid only for the share owned by the vendor, and a party can challenge findings of a lower court even without filing a cross-appeal.
The court affirmed that a pre-Act widow could alienate property with consent, impacting the validity of claims over inherited land.
Co-owner not party to sale deed need not cancel it to claim partition of undivided share in joint family property.
Failure to challenge a sale deed standing in the name of a defendant may render a suit claim for partition not maintainable.
The main legal point established is the application of Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, the exclusion of contrary evidence, and the principles of Hindu Law regarding co-parcenary property and....
In joint family property disputes, a guardian may transact on behalf of minors without court sanction, provided sales serve family interests.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
