RAMDAS Vs. SITABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench while disposing of a second appeal filed by the appellant herein (Mr. Ramdas) who has been arrayed as defendant No. 3 in the original suit. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff -Sitabai (respondent No. 1 herein) seeking for a decree of partition and for delivery of possession of her share in the suit property. It was alleged in the plaint that the deceased Sukha had a son, namely Sudam who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit and a daughter (plaintiff-Sitabai). The plaintiff-Sitabai, therefore, is the sister of the defendant No. 1-Sudam.

(2.) Sukha died on 7-12-1977 and at the time of his death he left behind him the followine Properties : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_790_TLPRE0_2009_1.html</FRM>

(3.) In the said suit the plaintiff-Sitabai claimed to be a co-sharer to the extent of half share in the said suit property for the reason that the plaintiff-Sitabai and the defendant No. 1-Sudam are the only legal heirs of deceased Sukha. It was contended by the plaintiff-Sitabai that the defendant No. 1-Sudam had sold Gat No. 19 area admeasuring 2.56HR of Mouza Padoli to defendant No. 3-Ramdas for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/-. It was further stated in the plaint that the defendant No. 1-Sudam had also executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 3-Ramdas on 19-3-1980 without the consent of the plaintiff-Sitabai. It was contended that the said sale deed is void and not binding on the plaintiff-Sitabai since the said transaction was done without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff-Sitabai. It was further contended that the plaintiff-Sitabai is entitled for equal share i.e. 1/2 shares in the suit property including Gat No. 19 and the defendant No. 1-Sudam had no right and title to sale the same without the consent of the plaintiff-Sitabai. Therefore, the plaintiff-Sitabai prayed for a decree for partition and for recovery of possession.