NARENDRA HARI PATIL Vs. MORESHWAR HARI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. By consent of the parties, Appeal is heard fnally.

(2.) Present Appeal is by original Plaintiff whose suit for partition and injunction came to be dismissed on 27/02/2007 which Judgment was confrmed in Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2007 by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Thane on 23/12/2013.

(3.) Shri Jha, learned council appearing for Appellant-original Plaintiff while questioning concurrent fndings would invite my attention to the status of the parties to the petition. According to Shri Jha, one Hari Patil died on 29/11/1988, who was blessed with in all fve children. The Appellant-original Plaintiff-younger son, Defendant- Respondent-elder son, three daughters namely Kesribai, Sandhya and Chandrakala. According to Plaintiff agricultural land mentioned in the plaint in the form of frst property, second property and Galas in Hari industrial estate situated at survey number 52/26 at village Khari Taluka and district Thane are ancestral properties. According to Shri Jha, property bearing survey number 99/01 of Kharigaon Bhayandar and another property Hari industrial estate standing on survey number 52/26 being ancestral and joint family property of deceased Hari Patil were never subjected to partition. It is further claimed that on 13/01/1989, parties to the suit sold out ancestral property and joint family property Survey No. 99/01 of Kharigaon Bhayandar to one Dinanath Patil and 5 others on 13/01/1989. Out of the sale proceeds, it was agreed vide agreement dated 27/04/1989 that land survey number 3 Hissa No. 1p admeasuring 2050 square metres, Survey No. 3(part) admeasuring 10600 square metres and survey number 7(part) admeasuring 580 square metres at village Vasurikund Taluka Wada district Thane and land survey number 2p admeasuring 8780 square metres were agreed to be purchased for a consideration of Rs. 145000/- and Rs. 110000/- from Baliram Patil, Yamuna Bai Patil and Jayram Patil respectively. It is claimed that part consideration thereof was paid. According to Appellant at the time of agreement, earnest amount that was paid was contributed by the Plaintiff and Defendant from the amount received after sale of the property to Dinanath Patil, however, according to Plaintiff, Defendant purchased the aforesaid properties in his own name. It is the case of the Plaintiff that since the properties purchased by the Defendant in his own name are out of the sale consideration received from transfer of ancestral property, the Plaintiff has share in the same. As such, the Suit for partition.