SATISH GOVIND Vs. VINAYAK GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal takes exception to order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mhapusa upholding an objection by respondent Vinayak to inclusion of a sum of Rs. 2.35 Lacs towards passive debt of deceased Damodar Bhatkuly, while settling descriptions and appraisal of assets of the deceased.

(2.) Facts, which are material for deciding this appeal are as under. Heirs of Govind Sinai Bhatkuly partitioned the properties by a deed dated 22-5-1991. On the same day, a deed of understanding was entered into by heirs. Construction of shops and flats had been undertaken by appellant No. 1 Satish, who had been appointed Cabeca de casal (head of the family), by collecting sale price of two shops amounting to Rs. 3,92,750/- and raising loans amounting to Rs. 1,77,302.72/-. There was also an outstanding bill of Rs. 85,182.84 to be paid to contractor. Liability of co-owners towards phase I of construction was quantified at Rs. 2,62,485.56 (i.e. Loan of Rs. 1,77,302.72 + dues Rs. 85,182.84). 60 % of work had been completed and by this deed, the co-owners undertook to complete the remaining 40% work from their own resources. Other recitals are not relevant for the present.

(3.) After this, Damodar died in 1992 and bequeathed the properties by a will to Kunda (appellant No. 7). She claimed to have completed 40 % of the remaining work by paying Rs. 1,06,000/- to Satish appellant No. 1, and spending Rs. 42,000/- towards purchase of material and Rs. 22,000/- towards labour charges. This was in addition to payment of Rs. 65,000/- towards Damodar's share in liabilities (presumably as per deed dated 22-5-1991, which actually work out to Rs. 65,621.39/-) Thus, in all a sum of Rs. 2.35 Lacs was claimed to have been spent by legatee Kunda.