2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5948
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE
ANUSAYA BABURAO KALE AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
BABAI LAXMAN CHORGE – Respondent
SA/296/1993
2025:BHC-AS:35026 Digitally signed VARSHA by VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU Date:
RAJGURU 2025.08.13
18:06:54 +0530
5-sa-296-1993(j).doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 296 OF 1993
1. Anusaya Baburao Kale (since deceased) through Legal Heirs
1.A. Balabai Vishnu Nimbalkar
1.B. Shivaji Ishwar Hetkale (since deceased)
both resident of Raviwar Peth, Satara.
1B1. Nirmala Shivaji Hetkale House No. 66, Lonar Gali, Behind Gite Building, Satara. 1B2. Savita Krishana Godse Algur Wadi, Frensher Khadi, Taluka:
Phaltan, District: Satara.
1B3. Sandeep Shivaji Hetkale
1B4. Sachin Shivaji Hetkale 1B5. Satish Shivaji Hetkale All residents of Raviwar Peth, House No. 66, Lonar Gali, Behind Gite Building, Satara.
2. Balabai Vishnu Nimbalkar
3. Sarsabai Ishwar Hetkale, deceased by heir and legal representative
3.A. Shivaji Ishawar Hetkale, Occupation of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Agriculturist, All residents of Raviwar Peth, Satara.
3A1. Nirmala Shivaji Hetkale Raviwar Peth, House No. 66, Lonar Gali, Behind Gite Building, Satara.
3A2. Savita Krishna Godse Algur Wadi, Frensher Khadi, Taluka Phaltan, district Satara.
3A3. Sandeep Shivaji Hetkale
3A4. Sachin Shivaji Hetkale 3A5. Satish Shivaji Hetkale All residents of Raviwar Peth, House No.
66, Lonar Gali, Behind Gite Building, Satara.
4. Shivaji Ishwar Hetkale Occupation of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Agriculturist, All residents of Raviwar Peth, Satara.
4A. Nirmala Shivaji Hetkale, Raviwar Peth, House No. 66, Lonar Gali, Behind Gite Building, Satara.
4B. Savita Krishna Godse, Algur Wadi, Frensher Khadi, Taluka: Phaltan, District: Satara.
4C. Sandeep Shivaji Hetkale
4D. Sachin Shivaji Hetkale
4E. Satish Shivaji Hetkale All residents of Raviwar Peth, House No.
... Appellants
66, Lonar Gali, Behind Gite Building,Satara.
Versus Babai Laxman Chorge (since deceased through legal heirs and representatives:
(a) Smt. Lata Dilip Chorge (b) Kishore Dilip Chorge (c) Sankesh Dilip Chorge (d) Smt. Sangita Kashinath Chorge (e) Vishal Kashinath Chorge (f) Mona Kashinath Chorge (g) Ashok Laxman Chorge (h) Surekha Gajanan Holkar All residents of 60, Raviwar Peth, Budruk Raveli,Taluka: Phaltan, District: Satara.
(i) Uma Ashutash Dhodmise Residing at 909, Sadashiv Peth, Near Brahmin Karyaalaya, Pune. … Respondents Ms. Aditi S. Naikware a/w. Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w. Rushikesh S.
Kekane for Appellants.
Mr. Sharad Bhosale i/b. Mr. Dilip Bodake for Respondent.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
RESERVED ON : 17th APRIL 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 13th AUGUST 2025 JUDGMENT :-
1. This appeal is preferred by the original defendants to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees directing them to hand over possession of the suit property to the respondent- plaintiff. The second appeal was admitted on 14th June 1993 on the following substantial questions of law:
i. If Rama died prior to 1956 as is the admission of plaintiff in cross, whether defendants right of residence is protected under provision of section 23 of Hindu Succession Act.
ii. If he died after 1956 whether defendants can claim share in Ramas interest.
iii. Effect of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act.
iv. Other incidental question.
2. The suit property is ancestral. The original holder was Natha, who died leaving behind two sons, Rama and Chandar. The parties claim rights in respect of the suit property through Rama. In the partition between Rama and his brother, Chandar, the suit property was allotted to Rama. Rama had three daughters and three sons. Plaintiff is the widow of one of the sons, Laxman. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the daughters of Rama, and defendant no.4 is the son of defendant no.3. The suit property is part of the property that was allotted to the share of Rama.
3. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking possession from the appellants. The plaintiff contended that after the demise of Rama in the year 1950, the property, including the suit properties, was jointly owned by the sons of Rama. The plaintiff further contended that there was a partition amongst the sons of R