Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2213
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SOU. JYOTI W/O. ARUNRAO BHONGADE AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
SUMANT S/O. PANDHARI CHAFLE AND OTHERS – Respondent
SA 57 / 2016
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
-
The case involves a second appeal concerning the nature and ownership of a property, with the main issue being whether the property is ancestral or separate property of the defendant (!) (!) .
-
The original parties include plaintiffs who are siblings and defendants who are their parents and relatives. The dispute centers around the sale and partition of the property inherited or owned by the defendant No.1, Pandhari Chafle (!) (!) (!) .
-
The defendant No.1 had sold the suit property, which was initially owned by his father, Yadavrao Chafle. The plaintiffs challenged this sale, asserting their rights over the property (!) .
-
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the property was ancestral but that the sale was valid as the plaintiffs failed to prove otherwise (!) .
-
The first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the property was ancestral, and granted a partition, including shares to the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, while dismissing the claim of defendant No.3 (!) .
-
The second appeal was initially dismissed but later restored to file after a review application was allowed. The substantial questions of law framed concern whether the property became individual or remained ancestral after the death of Yadavrao and whether the plaintiffs could seek partition during the lifetime of their father (!) (!) .
-
The appellate court analyzed the evidence and found that the property was not proven to be ancestral. The document indicating a partition between Yadavrao and his brother was deemed insufficient to establish the property’s ancestral status, especially since no pleadings or evidence demonstrated that the property was held as ancestral by Yadavrao (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that property received through partition after the commencement of the relevant law (Hindu Succession Act, 1956) is to be considered separate property, not ancestral, unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof was on the plaintiffs, which they failed to meet (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that an admission by a non-family member regarding the ancestral nature of the property in cross-examination could not outweigh the lack of proper pleadings and evidence establishing the property as ancestral (!) (!) .
-
The court concluded that the property in question was Pandhari’s separate property, giving him absolute rights to deal with it, including sale and alienation. As a result, the sale deeds and subsequent transactions were valid, and the claim for partition was not sustainable (!) (!) .
-
The judgment set aside the earlier decree and allowed the appeal, with parties bearing their own costs. The court also restrained the respondents from creating third-party interests over the property for eight weeks, pending any further appeal (!) (!) .
-
The court highlighted that the evidence and pleadings did not sufficiently establish the property as ancestral, and the documents produced post-trial were not conclusive or properly admitted. The evidence did not support the claim that the property was jointly owned as ancestral property (!) (!) .
This summary reflects the court’s reasoning and conclusions based on the evidence, pleadings, and legal principles discussed in the document.
2025:BHC-NAG:5128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2016 APPELLANTS : 1. Sou. Jyoti w/o Arunrao Bhongade, (Original Defendant/ Aged about 45 years, Respondent No.5) Occupation Agriculture, R/o. Kanholibara, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur.
(Original Defendant/ 2. Shri Kishor s/o Mannalal Sanchariya, Respondent No.2) Aged about 54 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o. Anji (Mothi), Tahsil & District Wardha.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS : 1. Sumant S/O Pandhari Chafle, (Original Plaintiff/ Aged about 27 years, Appellant No.1) Occupation Student, R/o. Sukli (Ubar), Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha.
(Original Plaintiff/ 2. Sou. Manisha w/o Naresh Nistane, Appellant No.2) Aged about 36 years, Occupation Household, R/o Telipura, Wardha, Tahsil & District Wardha.
(Original Plaintiff/ 3. Sou. Bharti w/o Bhaskarrao Dadhe, Appellant No.3) Aged about 34 years, Occupation Household, R/o Ganesh Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, Wardha, Tahsil & District Wardha.
(Original Plaintiff/ 4. Ku. Bhakti d/o Pandharinath Chafle, Appellant No.4) Aged about 28 years, Occupation Student, R/o Sukli (Udhar), Tah. Arvi, District Nagpur.
(Original Defendant/ 5. Shri Pandhari s/o Yadavrao Chafle, Respondent No.1) Aged about 58 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Pulai, Tahsil & District Wardha.
(Original Defendant/ 6. Sou. Jijabai w/o Pandhari Chafle, Respondent No.3) Aged about 55 years, Occupation Household, R/o Sukli (Ubhar), Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha.
(Original Defendant/ 7. Sau. Swati w/o Dhirajrao Kawale, Respondent No.4) Aged about 32 years, Occupation Service, R/o D-34, Maroti Building, Shruti Complex, Sector-2, Near Bhakti Vedant Hospital, Meera Road, East Thane, Mumbai.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri P. D. Randive, Ms. Riya Hotchandani and Shri Gaurav Balpande, Advocates for appellants.
Shri M. P. Dhruv, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 08/05/2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The present second appeal was earlier dismissed by judgment dated 25/08/2016. Subsequently, the appellants filed an application for review bearing MCA No.1039/2016 which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 29/10/2021. The judgment dated 25/08/2016 dismissing the second appeal was set aside and second appeal was restored to file. In the circumstances, the second appeal again came up for hearing. Vide order dated 04/07/2022, following substantial questions of law have been framed :
“(1)Whether after the death of Yadaorao Chafle leaving behind the suit property inherited by Pandhari Yadaorao Chafle in partition of 1970, it becomes the individual property of Pandhari Yadaorao Chafle or it becomes ancestral property of Pandhari Yadaorao Chafle ?
(2) Whether during the life time of father his son and daughter i.e. original plaintiffs can ask for partition of the suit property and further can ask for equal share in the suit property ?”
2. The appellants in the present second appeal are original defendant Nos.2 and 5. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are original plaintiffs. The respondent No.5 is the original defendant No.1. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 are original defendant Nos.3 and 4. The parties will be referred in the judgment as plaintiffs and defendants.
3. The plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 are related to each other as brothers and sisters. The defendant No.1 is their father. The defendant No.4 is another sister of plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 is father and mother respectively of plaintiffs and defendant No.4.
4. The defendant No.1 - father had sold the suit property i.e. land bearing Field Survey No.231/1 (Old Field Survey No.89/3) admeasuring area 2.94 HR situated in Mouza Pulai, Tahsil and and District Wardha vide registered sale deed dated 14/02/2007 to defendant No.2. The plaintiffs who are son and daughters of the vendor – defendant No.1 have challen
