RAMCHANDRA PANDURANG SONAR (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ORS. versus MURLIDHAR RAMCHANDRA SONAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 19-07-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMCHANDRA PANDURANG SONAR (DECEASED) 
THROUGH HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRE-
SENTATIVES AND ORS. 
v. 
MURLIDHAR RAMCHANDRA SONAR AND ORS. 
JULY 19, 1990 
[P.B. SAWANT AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
y 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section JOO-Second appeal-
Finding of fact-High Court not to interfere unless question of law is 
involved and such question is formulated by it. 
S and R were brothers who carried on the business of gold 
smithery, and a partition took place between them In 1918. R got 2 
houses and land in Survey No. 71. Later on, one of the' sons of R 
c 
Ji>- instituted a suit claiming that Survey No. 71 was an ancestral property 
-~· 
and that some of the suit properties were purchased by R out of the 
D 
income, and subsequently the sale proceeds, of the land. The defen-
dants,, v~.; the other children of R contended that Survey No. 71 was 
purcJiased by S and R with the income they derived from gold smithery 
and the suit properties except the two houses which were admittedly the 
ancestrat'properties, were not the joint family properties In which the 
plaintiff could claim his share. 
E 
The Trial Court decreed the suit In favour of the plaintiff. On 
appeal by the defendants, the First Appellate Court reappreciated the 
evidence, found infirmities In the conclusions arrived at by the Trial 
Court and dismissed the suit except to the extent of plaintiff's share In 
the two ancestral houses, on the basis of its finding that the other 
F 
properties were self-acquired properties of R. 
During the pendency of the suit R died. By virtue of his will the 
self-acquired properties of R went to the defendants and the plaintiff 
was left out. 
The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the High Court against 
the order of the First Appellate Court. The High Court lnterefered with 
the said findings of facts and held that since Survey No. 71 had come to 
the share of R in general partition, it was ancestral property. It further 
observed that since the said property was yielding income with the help 
G 
of which the other properties could have been purchased and since 
H 
435 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
436 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 
further the gold smithery business was au ancestral business, the pro-
perties purchased with the help of such income should be held to be 
joint family properties. 
Aggrieved, the defendants have tiled this appeal. Allowing the 
appeal, 
HELD: I. There was, iio quesilon dflaw irivolved in the second 
appeal. Yet the High Court chose to interfere with the finding ignoring 
the mandatory provisions of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code 
that unless it was satisfied that the case involved substantial question of 
law it could not entertain it and that before it could entertain it, the 
Court had to formulate such question. l440F] 
2.1 It was not disputed at any time that the property in Survey 
No. 71 had all along stood in the name of Supadu and, therefore, the 
presumption drawn by the First Appellate Court that this showed that 
in all probability the property was purchased after the death of his 
father cannot be said to be unreasonable. There is no evidence brought 
on record by the plaintiff with regard to the quantum of income from 
Survey No. 71. In fact, the uncontroverted evidence on record shows 
that Ramchandra had no implements and bullocks for cultivating the 
land and the land was always cultivated with the help of the labourers 
who brought their own implements and bullocks. This shows that the 
family derived less than normal income from the said land. It was 
admitted by the plaintiff that Ramchandra was a skilled goldsmith and 
was well-known in the locality as such, and was doing his business as 
goldsmith and earning sufficient income. [440A-D] 
2.2 The High Court ignoring the fact that it was not the case of 
the plaintiff that goldsmithery was an ancestral Jmsiness and' that it was 
not his case that the suit properties were purch.ised with the help of the 
income from the said business held that it was so. What is further, the 
plaintiff's case was that the suit properties were purchased with the 
income from Survey No. 71. Thus it is obvious that the conclusions 
which were arrived at by the First Appellate Court were reasonable and 
legal besides being conclusions of facts. [4400-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3704 
>-
1. .
~~-
~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.1987 of the Bombay 
H 
High Court in Second Appeal No. 725 

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