Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Mangesh S. Patil, J
GULAM MAGDUM GULAM SARVAR – Appellant
Versus
NIYAMATIBI GULAM SARVAR (DIED) AND OTHERS – Respondent
Key Points: - The concurrent findings of lower courts established ownership contrary to the appellant's claims; Benami transaction claims dismissed. (!) (!) - The court held that the properties left behind by Gulam Sarvar were inherited, with Nasima Begum and the three sons as residuaries after accounting for Niyamatbi's 1/8th share; final shares modified accordingly. (!) (!) (!) - The second appeal was dismissed with modifications in the decree, confirming the lower court findings and the inheritance distribution. (!) (!) - Niyamatbi’s death did not alter the adjudicated shares; the share distribution for Nasima Begum and the three sons calculated from the 1/8th widow’s portion. (!) (!) - The court rejected the Benami Act challenge and found the properties were not proven to be Benami transactions. (!) - The court emphasized that Section 100 CPC standards limit interference in concurrent findings where plausible evidence supports the lower courts’ conclusions. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the inheritance claim from properties of gulam sarvar. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding rightful ownership made by the appellants. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence and legal standards for ownership. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 22) |
| 4. court's final reasoning on ownership based on documentary evidence. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. conclusion of the court regarding the dismissal of the second appeal. (Para 24 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
This is a second appeal by the original defendant no. 1 who is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below.
2. Respondents nos. 1 and 2 who died during pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court were the original plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent no. 3 who was the plaintiff no. 3. They claimed separation of their shares in the properties left behind by their common ancestor - Gulam Sarvar who was husband of the respondent no. 1 and father of the respondents no. 2, 3, appellant and respondent no. 9 who was the original defendant no. 2.
3. Shortly stated the facts leading to the filing of this second appeal, are to following effect :
(a) Gulam Sarvar, Mohammed Sharif and Mohammed Khaja were the three brot
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
