VITTHALRAO MAROTIRAO NAVKHARE Vs. NANIBAI (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The plaintiff in Spl. C.S. No. 286 of 2005 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati, is the appellant before us. In one appeal, he assails certain findings recorded by a learned Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in the judgment dtd. 24/11/2018 in Second Appeal No. 38 of 2009, arising therefrom. In the other appeal, his challenge is to the order dtd. 22/3/2019 of the very same learned Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 46 of 2019 in Second Appeal No. 38 of 2009.

(3.) Spl. C.S. No. 286 of 2005 was filed by the appellant for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, which included houses and agricultural lands. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in the suit were the widow and progeny of the plaintiff's deceased brother, Laxmanrao Navkhare. Defendant No. 7 was the wife of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 filed a counter-claim in the suit seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff from obstructing them from carrying on the business. By judgment dtd. 29/2/2008, the Trial Court decreed the suit in part, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to partition and separate possession of a half-share in the agricultural land in Survey No. 22/1-A at Mouza Shendola, Taluk Teosa, District Amravati. According to the Trial Court, this agricultural land alone was proved to be ancestral property, belonging to the plaintiff and his deceased brother, while the rest of the properties were the self-acquired properties of late Laxmanrao. The Trial Court further held that late Laxmanrao was the sole proprietor of the business concern named 'Gajanan Automobiles' and the plaintiff had no interest therein. The counter-claim of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 was accordingly decreed.