ROHIT RAMESH PALVE Vs. TULA SHANKAR PALAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff against the concurrent findings rendered in Regular Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2013 by the first Appellate Court on 15/4/2019 arising out of judgment and decree dtd. 8/3/2013 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 227 of 1996 by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Plaintiff had filed a suit for partition in respect of property described in paragraph nos. 1A to 1D. The suit property is claimed to be an ancestral property and originally owned by one Shankar. The Plaintiff No. 1 is the son of Ramesh, who is the grandson of Shankar and Plaintiff No. 2 is wife of Ramesh. It is pleaded that Defendant Nos. 1 to 10 who were the other legal heirs sold the suit property described in clause 1(c) of the Plaint to Defendant Nos. 11 and 12 and in respect of properties at Clause 1A, B and D, an Agreement to Sale came to be executed on 25/3/1990 in favor of Defendant Nos. 13 and 14. During the pendency of the proceedings, the suit came to be settled by the Plaintiffs with Defendant Nos. 11 and 12 and hence, no relief was claimed in respect of the property described in clause 1(c) of the Plaint.

(3.) The Trial Court by judgment dtd. 8/3/2013 appreciated the evidence on record. It held that Defendant Nos. 13 and 14 had pleaded that properties were alienated for well-being of joint family. It noted that Ramesh was alive during execution of Agreement for Sale and had not challenged the agreement. The Trial Court noted that during cross-examination, there is no denial obtained from Defendant No. 13 regarding evidence i.e. the alienation was for legal necessity for the marriage of daughters of family. The Trial Court has observed that it is not suggested there was no need for the family to sell the property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by observing that though the Plaintiffs had prayed for declaration against one of the Sale Deed executed in favor of Defendant Nos. 11 and 12, however, has not claimed any relief against the Sale Deed executed in favor of Defendant Nos. 13 and 14.