GITABAI MARUTI RAUT (DEAD) THROUGH LR. & ORS. versus PANDURANG MARUTI RAUT (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

GITABAI MARUTI RAUT (DEAD) THROUGH LR. & ORS. versus PANDURANG MARUTI RAUT (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

The court held that the Nande property is not ancestral in the absence of pleadings or proof of acquisition from joint family income and in view of evidence that defendant No.1 purchased it after Maruti's death; however, the memorandum of settlement dated 23.12.1961 (Ex.111) together with Mutation No.1274/Ex.104 establishes that the Pirangut property was part of a partition of joint family property and therefore the plaintiff and defendants (including daughters of Maruti) are entitled to equal shares (1/10th each) in Pirangut and Lavale, with preliminary decree to be drawn accordingly.

Parties
Appellant: GITABAI MARUTI RAUT (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. & ORS.; Respondent: PANDURANG MARUTI RAUT (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 7702 of 2013 / Final Judgment on Appeal (preliminary Decree Granted)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Partition, Ancestral Property, Hindu Undivided Family, Mutation, Family Settlement
Property Law Family Law Civil Procedure Partition Ancestral Property Hindu Undivided Family Mutation Family Settlement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GITABAI MARUTI RAUT (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. & ORS.

Appellant

PANDURANG MARUTI RAUT (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. & ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 7702 of 2013 / Final Judgment on Appeal (preliminary Decree Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the properties at Pirangut and Nande are joint family ancestral properties of Maruti and hence shareable by the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether the Nande property was purchased after Maruti’s death and whether the appellants pleaded or proved acquisition from joint family income
  3. 3 Whether the memorandum of settlement (Ex.111) and subsequent mutation (Ex.104/1274) establish partition and entitlement in Pirangut

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Nande property is not ancestral in the absence of pleadings or proof of acquisition from joint family income and in view of evidence that defendant No.1 purchased it after Maruti's death; however, the memorandum of settlement dated 23.12.1961 (Ex.111) together with Mutation No.1274/Ex.104 establishes that the Pirangut property was part of a partition of joint family property and therefore the plaintiff and defendants (including daughters of Maruti) are entitled to equal shares (1/10th each) in Pirangut and Lavale, with preliminary decree to be drawn accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Preliminary decree granted declaring that the plaintiff and defendants (including daughters of Maruti) have equal 1/10th shares each in the Pirangut and Lavale properties
  • The share of the deceased plaintiff shall devolve according to the law of succession applicable