SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1776

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Arun s/o Narayanrao Kale – Appellant
Versus
Sau. Meena w/o Kishore Maliye – Respondents
Second Appeal No.455 of 2023
Decided On : 16-12-2025

Advocates appeared:
For appellant :Mr. Jaideep J. Chandurkar, Advocate
For the respondents:Mrs. Dr. Renuka S. Sirpurkar, Advocate

Property inherited post-partition is categorized as separate property under Hindu law, thus allowing the vendor exclusive rights to sell without objections from the objectors.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - The High Court decides various appeals concerning property rights involving joint family and self-acquired property. Each party disputes the ancestral nature of the property and the validity of a sale-deed executed by the vendor, who was alleged to be under the influence of alcohol when agreeing to sell. (Paras 2-30)

(B) Property Law - Ancestral Property vs. Self-Acquired Property - The court emphasizes that property inherited becomes separate property post the death of the father under the Hindu Succession Act, promoting the principle that partition impacts property rights. (Paras 21, 27, 30)

(C) Appeal Abatement - The court rules on the procedural aspects regarding the maintainability of suits following the death of a party involved, clarifying legal representation rights. (Paras 19-20)

Facts of the case:
The disputes arise from two civil suits regarding Agricultural land, with the plaintiffs asserting their right to prevent the defendant from selling the land. The vendor contended that the property was self-acquired and denied any ownership claims from the plaintiffs.

Findings of Court:
The court found the property to have been self-acquired by the vendor, distinct from ancestral claims of the plaintiffs, and ruled the objections against the sale unfounded.

Issues: The court addressed whether the suit property was ancestral, the validity of the sale-deed, and if the objection to the sale warranted a partition suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that properties inherited after a partition become separate individual property and that the vendor had the right to sell the property without the objectors' consent.

Result: Second Appeal Nos. 455/2023 and 457/2023 allowed; Second Appeal Nos. 148/2024 and 156/2024 dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

1. These four second appeals are pertaining to the same property and same parties. They involve common dispute and are therefore being decided by common judgment. Second Appeals arise out of two different suits being Regular Civil Suit No.15/2012 (Old Special Civil Suit No.11/2008) and Regular Civil Suit No.39/2007.

2. The appellants in Second Appeal Nos.148/2024 and 156/2024 had filed Regular Civil Suit No.39/2007 inter alia seeking decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from selling the suit property to the defendant No.2 in the said suit. The plaintiffs in the said suit are wife and children of defendant No.1. It is their case that the suit property which is an agricultural land bearing Gat No.138 of village Shivar, Tahsil Daryapur, District Amravati admeasuring 1.70 HR is Joint Family property of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in the said suit and that the defendant No.1 had intention to sell the suit property to the defendant No.2 in order to satisfy his vices. It is stated that the defendant No.1 was addicted to liquor and was intending to sell the suit property to the defendant No.2 in order to meet expenses for the same.

3. The defendant No.1 (Vendor) filed a Pursis admitting the entire claim of the plaintiffs. However, his application seeking permission to file written statement is rejected by the learned trial Court. The defendant No.2 filed written statement in the suit and denied all adverse allegations in the plaint. Defendant No.2 contended that the defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement of sale with respect to suit property with him for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,29,500/-. The defendant No.2 stated that defendant No.1 had also executed sale-deed in his favour and had delivered possession of the suit property to him. It was further stated that on the same day i.e. on 11/07/2007, the defendant No.1 had repaid loan of Rs.12,200/- to Daryapur Seva Sahakari Society. The defendant No.2 contended that the sale-deed could not be registered since the plaintiff No.1 visited the office of Sub Registrar while the said sale-deed was about to be registered and created ruckus. The defendant No.1 denied that suit property was Joint Hindu Family property and claimed that defendant No.1 was sole and absolute owner of the same.

4. The plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.39/2007 will be referred as “objectors”, the defendant No.1 will be referred as “vendor (Karta)” and the defendant No.2 will be referred as “purchaser” in the body of the judgment hereinafter.

5. The learned trial Court dismissed the said suit vide judgment and decree dated 12/07/2012. The objectors/plaintiffs have preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.100/2012, challenging the said decree. The said appeal came to be allowed vide judgment and decree dated 05/10/2023. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court came to be quashed and set aside and a decree for perpetual injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiffs/objectors thereby restraining the defendant No1-vendor from selling the suit property to the defendant No.2 – purchaser. However, the learned first Appellate Court had recorded a finding that the defendant No.1 - vendor had entered into agreement of sale with the defendant No.2 - purchaser and that the defendant No.2 - purchaser had paid a sum of Rs.1,29,500/- to the defendant No.1 - vendor. The plaintiffs (objectors) have filed Second Appeal No.156/2024, challenging the said finding, recorded by the learned first Appellate Court.

6. Likewise, the purchaser/defendant No.2 has preferred Second Appeal No.156/2024, challenging the said judgment and decree dated 05/10/2023, passed by the learned first Appellate Court in Regular Civil Suit No.100/2012, since the suit filed by the objectors came to be decreed.

7. The purchaser, who is defendant No.2 in Regular Civil Suit No.39/2007 filed a separate suit being Regular Civil Suit No.15/2012 (Old Special Civil Suit No.11/2008) inter alia seeking

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top