Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.M.SATHAYE
Baban Sadashiv Sasar – Appellant
Versus
Nivrutti Sabaji Sasar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. M. SATHAYE, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Second Appeal No.374 of 2025 is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2024 passed by District Judge-2, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.642 of 2011. Second Appeal No.367 of 2025 is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2024 passed by District Judge-2, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.707 of 2011. By the said impugned Judgments and Decrees, appeals are allowed and common Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2011 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1696 of 2005 passed Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, is set aside.
3. Present Appellants are original Plaintiffs and the Respondents are original Defendants.
CASE
4. The said suit was filed for partition and separate possession, declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the Appellants that the suit properties are ancestral properties, which were in possession of one Sabaji Dhondiba Sasar and Sadashiv Dhondiba Sasar. The Appellants are claiming through the branch of Sadashiv and Respondents are from the branch of Sabaji. That partition has not been effected in the family. Dhondiba was the father of Sabaji and Sadashiv. Dhondiba di
Timely action is crucial in partition claims; inaction spanning decades bars relief, as established by limitation principles.
Point of law: “Conduct of indifference or Acquiescence and held that, it is settled law that an estoppel may arise as against persons who have not willfully made any misrepresentation, and whose cond....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the acknowledgment of the plaintiffs' share in the suit property, the applicability of limitation in setting aside the sale deed, and the partition....
Rights for partition in ancestral property for daughters recognized post the 2005 amendment, with claims barred by limitation in the absence of joint possession.
A plaintiff can only establish entitlement to partition if they demonstrate joint ownership and the failure to do so, particularly through admissions and evidence of prior partition, warrants dismiss....
Property claims arising from sale deeds prior to 2005 are barred by limitation if not contested within statutory periods, affecting entitlement to ancestral property rights.
Joint family property retains its character unless proven otherwise; sales by co-parceners without all parties' consent do not extinguish shared rights.
The validity of a sale deed in the context of family necessity and the application of limitation periods under the Limitation Act, 1963.
A claim of partition in Hindu joint family property must be substantiated with credible evidence; conjecture does not suffice.
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
