2023 Supreme(Bom) 1807
M. S. JAWALKAR
Chandrabhaga Kolhe – Appellant
Versus
Suryabhan – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
P.D.Meghe, Advocate, Aarti Singh, Advocate
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with corresponding references:
- Case Details: The case is Chandrabhaga Kolhe - Appellant vs. Suryabhan - Respondent, Second Appeal No. 236/2014, decided by the High Court of Bombay on 06-03-2023. (!) (!)
- Core Legal Principle: A relinquishment deed must be registered under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act to be admissible in evidence; if not registered, it cannot be used to prove the factum of partition. (!) (!) (!)
- Admissibility Rules: Unregistered documents are inadmissible for the primary purpose of dividing joint properties by metes and bounds, though they may be used for collateral purposes (like severancy of title) only after paying stamp duty and getting impounded. (!) (!)
- Facts of the Dispute: The appellant and respondent are siblings who inherited joint property from their father. The respondent allegedly obtained the appellant's signature on a document under the pretext of a partition deed in 1990 to claim exclusive ownership, but failed to produce this document or prove it was registered. (!) (!) (!)
- Lower Court Errors: The lower courts erred by recording perverse findings based on assumptions rather than evidence, specifically regarding the validity of the unproduced relinquishment deed and the appellant's entitlement to partition. (!) (!) (!)
- Substantial Questions of Law: The appeal framed three questions regarding the burden of proof for fraudulently obtained deeds, the impact of a subsequent sale deed on partition rights, and the entitlement to a partition decree without specific findings on share ownership. (!) (!)
- Judgment Outcome: The Second Appeal was allowed. The previous judgments and decrees were quashed, and the suit was decreed in favor of the appellant, declaring her half-share and ordering separate possession. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Further Orders: The court directed an enquiry for mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code and sent the decree for partition to the Collector under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code. (!) (!)
- Legal Precedents: The judgment relied on Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others (2015) 16 SCC 787 regarding the nature of documents in partition suits. (!)
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.
2. In spite of service respondent failed to appear in present second appeal.
3. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned Adhoc District Judge, Wardha, in Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 1998 dtd. 30/01/2014, thereby confirming judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti in regular Civil Suit No. 242/1992 (Old No. 37/1991) dtd. 07/10/1997, the appellant prefers this appeal.
4. The appeal is admitted vide order dtd. 05/10/2015 by framing following substantial questions of law:
(i) When the appellant by way of abandoned precaution stated in her plaint that some signatures were obtained by her brother in the year 1990 under the pretext of execution of Partition-Deed, then it is proper for the learned Lower Courts to record finding that the present appellant failed to prove that the relinquishment deed was fraudulently obtained by the defendant particularly when the defendant himself failed to produce the relinquishment-deed on the record?
(ii) Merely because one sale-deed came to be executed in favour of the present appellant after the death of her father, would that circumsta
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
