LexLATA BABURAO MANE & ANOTHER versus RAMACHANDRA BALASAHEB MANE (D) THROUGH LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 175
LATA BABURAO MANE & ANOTHER
v.
RAMACHANDRA BALASAHEB MANE (D) THROUGH
LRS.
(Civil Appeal No. 174 of 2007)
NOVEMBER 18, 2014
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
Partition -
Partition of family property - Extent of
entitlement - There was no partition at the time of death of
the collateral and hence the ancestors of appellants as well
as the respondent who were surviving at that time were entitled
A
B
c
to 50% share - On the relation back principle the adopted o
son (respondent) as well as the appellant were entitled to 50%
share.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: As there was no partition, succession did not
open at the time of death of the collateral in the year 1906.
His widow had only a right of maintenance and never
succeeded to the property. The ancestors of the
appellants and respondents survived till the year 1909
and they were entitled to 50% share each in the properties
and on, the relation back principle the adopted son
namely the respondent and the appellant are entitled to
50% share each in the suit properties. The findings of the
courts below that the adoption of the respondent relates
back to the death of his adoptive father and he is entitled
to 50% share in the suit properties, are based on correct
175
E
F
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 11 S.C.R.
A appreciation of facts and law and no interference is called
for. [para 7] [180-C-F]
Bhubaneshwari Debi vs. Nilkomul Lahiri 1885 (12) IA
137; Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango vs. Narayan Devji Kango
B and Ors. (1955 (1) SCR 1; Krishnamurthi Vasudeorao
Deshpande and another vs. Dhruwaraj 1962 SCR 813 =AIR
1962 SC 59; and Govind Hanumantha Rao Desai vs.
Nagappa and Seven others 1972 (3) SCR 200 = (1972) 1
sec 515 - heid -inappiicaore~
c
Case Law Reference:
1885 (12) IA 137
held inapplicable
para 5
D
(1955 (1) SCR 1
held inapplicable
para 5
1962 SCR 813
held inapplicable
para 5
1972 (3) SCR 200
held inapplicable
para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 174
E of 2007.
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.04.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal Nos. 65 and
85 of 2003.
Vijay Hansaria, Rajeev B. Masodkar, Anil K. Jha for the
Appellants.
Shekhar Naphade, Anshuman Sinha, Naresh Kumar,
G Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Shubhangi Tuli, Vatsalya Vigya for
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
C. NAGAPPAN, J.1. This appeal is preferred against
•
~TA
BABURAO MANE v. RAMACHANDRA BALASAHEB 177
MANE (D) THROUGH LRS. [C. NAGAPPAN, J ]
final common judgment and order dated 27.4.2005 passed by
A
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal
Nos.65 of 2003 and 85 of 2003, whereby the High Court
dismissed both the Second Appeals under a reasoned order.
2. Baburao Marutrao Mane and his daughter Lata Baburao
B
Mane filed Civil Suit No.203 of 1987 against the respondent
Ramchandra Balasaheb Mane now deceased, for permanent
injunction. Ramchandra Balasaheb Mane filed Civil Suit No.73
of 1988 against Baburao Marutrao Mane and others seeking
C
for partition of the suit properties. The trial court by common
judgment and decree dated 9.4.1999 dismissed suit No.203
of 1987, which was for grant of permanent injunction and
decreed suit No. 73 of 1988 which was for partition. Challenging
the same Baburao Marutrao Mane and others preferred two civil
D
appeals in Civil Appeal No.161 of 1999 and 162 of 1999 on
the file of Additional District Judge, Satara. The Appellate Court
dismissed both the appeals. Aggrieved by the same Baburao
Marutrao Mane and others preferred two second appeals in
Second Appeal Nos.65 of 2003 and 85 of 2003 on the file of
E
the High Court. Both the Second Appeals came to be
dismissed pursuant to which Baburao Marutrao Mane and
others preferred the present appeal.
3. While issuing notice this Court by order dated 29.7.2005
F
restricted it in the following terms:
"Issue Notice limited to the questions as to the share which
Ramchandra had in the property whether the High Court
was correct in holding that the adoption of Ramchandra
G
is related back to the date of his father's death."
4. A genealogical tree is relied upon and there is no
dispute to it, and it is reproduced below:
H
A
B
c
D
E [
F
G
H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
•
[2014] 11 S.C.R.
SURS!NGH
Niraji
Ravaji
Nana
Hushi
{Died before 1906)
(d~d witllout ~ir)
(died without hetrl
...
{DieExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.