SURESH DALPATRAI SHAH Vs. DNYANU MARUTI JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. After this matter was heard at length on 20th and 22nd Feb. 2017 and reserved for orders (argued at that time by Mr. Deshmukh, who appeared for Respondent No.1), the Court was informed subsequently that Respondent No.1 had expired sometime before the hearing and that Mr. Deshmukh had now been representing his legal heir, brought on record as Respondent No.1(c), whilst his other legal heirs (Respondent Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(d)) were being represented by another advocate. Accordingly, submissions of Mr. Dhabugade were heard today on behalf of these latter Respondents.

(2.) This second appeal challenges a judgment and order passed by the District Court at Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.150/1989. By this impugned judgment and order, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by Respondent No.2 herein (original Defendant No.1, since deceased and represented through his legal heirs, who are joined as Respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(h) to the second appeal). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned District Judge also allowed the cross objections filed by Respondent No.1 herein (original Plaintiff) and modified the decree passed by the trial court.

(3.) The decree of the trial court had declared onehalf share each of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 in the suit properties, including Plot bearing CTS No.1710 at Sangli, which belonged to their joint family, and passed a preliminary decree of partition. The Plaintiff was held to be entitled to initiate proceedings for a final decree. At the same time, in the body of the judgment, the learned District Judge held that as far as the plot bearing CTS No.1710 is concerned, which plot was sold by Defendant No.1 to the Appellants herein (original Defendant Nos. 2 to 5), the Plaintiff was entitled to onehalf share in the price paid by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, i.e. Rs.11,250/. (The plot bearing CTS No.1710 is hereinafter referred to as "suit land". The Second Appeal concerns only this plot of land.) This decree was challenged by Defendant No.1 on the ground that the suit land was purchased by him from his personal earnings and not from the income of the joint Hindu family and that he was accordingly entitled to sell the same to Defendant Nos.2 to 5 (Appellants herein). The original Plaintiff, on his part, filed cross objections before the first appellate court. One of the cross objections was that the trial court had erred in allowing only onehalf of the sale proceeds, i.e. Rs.11,250/, to the Plaintiff instead of allowing possession of the suit property based on partition. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by original Defendant No.1 and allowed the Plaintiff's cross objection. The present Second Appeal is pressed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, only to the extent the impugned order of the first appellate court allows the Plaintiff's crossobjection.