SHYAMSUNDAR RAGHUNATH PATIL Vs. CHANDRAKANT NARAYAN ZANTYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

(2.) Appellant is the original Defendant and Respondent is the original Plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as "Plaintiff and "Defendant".

(3.) Plaintiff is the maternal uncle of the Defendant. Plaintiff's father one Narayan Zantye died in 1946 leaving behind his widow and two sons Gurunath and Chandrakant and four daughters. One of the daughters Sumati had a son Shyamsundar who is the Defendant herein. Plaintiff filed suit against him for declaration that he is the owner of the property which is a residential house and for injunction, restraining the Defendant from obstructing enjoyment of the Plaintiff in respect of the dwelling house (hereinafter referred to as "suit property"). According to the Plaintiff, after death of his father, Plaintiff and his brother Gurunath executed a partition deed which was duly registered dated 7-7-1952 and in the said partition deed, Gurunath, brother of the Plaintiff relinquished his share in the suit property upon payment of Rs 500/- by the Plaintiff. According to Defendant, the said deed could not be termed as partition deed and, at the best, it could be treated as release deed. Secondly, it was contended that the Defendant's mother had l/3rd share in the suit property in view of section 3 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 and, therefore the suit property could not have been partitioned.