Case Note & Summary
The case involves a partition suit filed by three daughters (Plaintiffs) against their brother (Defendant No.1) and others, seeking a share in properties left by their father Purshottam Govind Inamdar, who died in 1971. The suit properties included Gat No.149 at Kashidwadi and several gat numbers at Padali. The Plaintiffs initially claimed the properties were ancestral, but later admitted in cross-examination that the Kashidwadi property was self-acquired and the Padali property was ancestral. Defendant Nos.1-3 (the brother and his family) contended that there was a prior partition in 1981, which the Plaintiffs denied. Defendant Nos.7-8 (legal heirs of another sister) claimed the properties were self-acquired and sought equal shares. The Trial Court held the properties were joint family properties and granted 1/18th share to each daughter, 7/18th to Defendant No.1, 7/18th to heirs of deceased son Arvind, and 1/18th to Defendant Nos.7-8 collectively. The Appellate Court reversed, holding that the properties were self-acquired based on admissions by Plaintiffs and Defendant No.3, and granted 1/6th share to each of the six children (Plaintiffs 1-3, Defendant No.1, heirs of Arvind collectively, and Defendant Nos.7-8 collectively). The High Court in second appeal framed a substantial question of law whether the Appellate Court's finding was based on misreading of evidence. The High Court upheld the Appellate Court's decision, noting that the Plaintiffs themselves admitted the Kashidwadi property was self-acquired, and there was no evidence to show the Padali property was ancestral. The burden to prove ancestral nature was on those asserting it, and they failed. The High Court dismissed both appeals, confirming the Appellate Court's decree.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Self-Acquired Property - Burden of Proof - Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6 - The court considered whether the suit properties were self-acquired or ancestral. The Appellate Court held that the properties were self-acquired based on admissions of parties and lack of evidence to the contrary. The High Court affirmed, noting that the burden to prove ancestral nature was on those asserting it, and the evidence showed the properties were purchased by the propositus. (Paras 17-20) B) Hindu Succession Act - Share of Daughters - Section 6 - The court determined the shares of daughters in self-acquired property of the father. Since the father died before the 2005 amendment, daughters were not coparceners but were entitled to a share in the father's estate. The Appellate Court correctly granted 1/6th share to each of the six children (including daughters). (Paras 15-16) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court examined whether the Appellate Court's finding was perverse or based on misreading of evidence. It concluded that the finding was based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. (Paras 17-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court's finding that the suit properties were self-acquired properties of the propositus was based on misreading of evidence.
Final Decision
Both second appeals dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Appellate Court dated 9th January 2015 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 6
- self-acquired property
- coparcenary property
- burden of proof
- partition
- share of daughters
