PRABHAKAR GONES PRABHU NAVELKAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS. versus SARADCHANDRA SURIA PRABHU NAVELKAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 21-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
859
PRABHAKAR GONES PRABHU NAVELKAR (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS & ORS.
v.
SARADCHANDRA SURIA PRABHU NAVELKAR (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos.10501-10502 of 2014)
     AUGUST 21, 2019
      [NAVIN SINHA AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Hindu Law: Property rights – Dispute related to the two
properties ‘M’ and ‘B’ situated in the village of Bainguinim in Goa
– Suriaji and Gones were brothers – The properties in dispute
originally belonged to their grandfather – Plaintiffs-appellants are
heirs and successors in interest of Gones – By the Gift Deed of
1913, the grandfather of Suriaji and Gones had gifted one-half
right in property ‘M’ to both Suriaji and Gones – The other half
share in property ‘M’ and the whole of property ‘B’ vested with the
aunt (father’s sister) of Suriaji and Gones – It was in 1915 that the
aunt executed sale deed conveying the rights to Suriaji and to the
other branch, viz., Vitol – A deed of dissolution of accounts,
payments and obligation was executed on 21.01.1919 in which
Suriaji and Gones appeared as parties on the one side represent-
ing the Venctexa branch and other branch of Vitol came to be rep-
resented by his wife along with her four sons – In deed dated
21.01.1919, Suriaji admitted that the purchase of one-fourth in the
property of ‘M’ and half of property ‘B’ by sale deed dated
17.11.1915 was for self and for his brother Gones who paid half
the price – Suriaji and his wife Shantibai undertook to effect the
transfer of registration in the name of Gones, half of the property
purchased in his name – Gones was on the occasion of transfer to
make reimbursement of the half of money paid by Suriaji – In 1925,
Suriaji and his wife Shantibai gifted in favour of Gones one-fourth
of property ‘M’ acquired by Suriaji from his grandfather under the
gift deed dated 09.03.1913 – Gones, thus, became entitled to
one-eighth of the property ‘M’ and one-fourth of the property ‘B’
as a result of purchase made under deed of sale dated 17.11.1915
– In 1937, half share of Gones in property ‘M’ was sold in public
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 859
  859
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
auction in execution proceedings against Gones – Despite the
dissolution of the Hindu undivided family, the families of Gones
and his brother Suriaji and the other branch always lived together
– In 1949, Gones proceeded to Daman on account of his
employment – He received his share from the suit property until his
death which took place in December 1978 – After his death,
appellants were not given their share and when they found that
their names were not included in the Survey records, they made
application to the survey authorities and came to know for the first
time about the partition deed dated 13.03.1969 and found that they
were excluded – Appellants  filed suit for declaration that they were
entitled to one-eighth share in the property ‘M’ and one-fourth share
in the property ‘B’; that the Deed of Partition dated 13.03.1969
executed by the concerned defendants was null and void and not
binding on them – Trial Court decreed the suit – However, First
Appellate Court set aside the order of trial court – High Court by
impugned order dismissed the appeal, holding that whatever right
or interest may have survived with Gones, was lost, as Gones did
not at any point of time challenge the allotment of property to
Shantibai which allotment in the Inventory Proceedings and
recording/ registration of rights in her favour has attained finality
for want of challenge – On appeal, held: By virtue of sale deed of
1915 and settlement deed of 1919, it cannot be concluded that Gones
acquired title as such in the plaint schedule property – Not only did
Gones not object  during or immediately after inventory
proceedings but though he lived till the year 1978,  he never raised
any claim in regard to the plaint schedule property – Equally as
found by the High Court and the first appellate  Court, there was
no material to show that Gones was in receipt of income from
property which was specific case of the appellants – Property was
shown in the name of Shantibai – Still further in 1969, Shantibai
executed a gift deed of the plaint scheduled property –
Immediately thereafter partition deeds were executed between
Shantibai and children –  Thus, Shantibai treated the property as
belonging to her – Still later land acquisition proceedings were held
in respect of part of the plaint schedule property – The
compensation determined was

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.