Back
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Gangubai Raghunath Ayare – Appellant
Versus
Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) through LRs. – Respondent
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 wi | ||
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.
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....
A married female heir does not lose the right to claim partition in ancestral property, but can be barred from claiming over property sold with her knowledge due to limitation.
Joint ownership claims persist until partition; rights in a partition suit are not bound by limitation, and the burden to prove legal necessity for property transfer lies with the transferee.
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
