RANGU NYAHALCHAND SHET VANI Vs. LAKSHMAN MARTAND KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant obtained a money decree against One Damu, one of the sons of the plaintiff in this case, and in execution attached what the defendant contended to be the undivided share of Damu in the house in suit. The plaintiff applied to get the attachment removed on the ground that the house was his self-acquired property and that Damu had no interest therein. The application was rejected. The plaintiff thereupon brought the present suit and prayed for a declaration that the house was not liable to be attached and sold. He also contended that though Damu had no interest in the house he had paid him Rs. 1,000 and settled his claim (if any).

(2.) The defendant contended that the house was joint family property of the plaintiff and his sons. The defendant, moreover, denied knowledge of the settlement alleged by the plaintiff and contended that even if there was a settlement effected as alleged, it could not be proved without a registered document.

(3.) The Court of first instance held that the house was not the self-acquired property of the plaintiff and that it was not open to the plaintiff to prove by oral evidence the alleged settlement as it amounted to a sale of Damu's share to the plaintiff and his other sons for Rs. 1,000 and so should have been effected in writing registered. As a result the suit was dismissed.