Bombay High Court
NAMDEO GENU PADALE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRSversusRAJENDRA KASHINATH KHAIRE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The second appeal is dismissed, affirming the first appellate court’s order that the daughters are entitled to a share of the mother's one‑quarter interest.
Summary
The case concerns the inheritance of property originally owned by Genu, who died in 1950 leaving a wife and three sons, while four daughters later claimed a share of the mother's one‑quarter interest. The three sons executed a partition deed in 2009, excluding the daughters, who then filed a suit for partition of the mother's share. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the property was not joint family property and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court reversed, holding that the daughters, as heirs of the mother, were entitled to a share of her one‑quarter interest and that the suit was within the limitation period. On second appeal, the High Court affirmed the first appellate court’s decision, finding no substantial question of law and dismissing the appeal, thereby upholding the division of the mother's share among the three sons and two surviving daughters.
Issues considered
- Whether the daughters are entitled to a share of the mother's one‑quarter interest in the inherited property.
- Whether the partition deed executed by the three brothers in 2009 was valid and barred the daughters' claim.
- Whether the suit filed in 2010 was barred by limitation.
- Whether the property in question constitutes joint family property.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- partition
- inheritance
- Hindu law
- limitation
- joint family property
- women's rights to property
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:41029
k 1/5 10 sa 170.25 w ia as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.170 OF 2025
Namdeo Genu Padale
since deceased through LRs
Sindubai Namdeo Padale & Ors. ....Appellants
V/S
Rajendra Kashinath Khaire & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2775 OF 2025
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.170 OF 2025
Namdeo Genu Padale
since deceased through LRs
Sindubai Namdeo Padale & Ors. ....Applicants
V/S
Rajendra Kashinath Khaire & Ors. ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Akshay P. Shinde
for the Appellants/Applicants.
Mr. Jaydeep Deo for Respondents.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 07 OCTOBER 2026.
P.C.:
1. This Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (the Code) challenging the judgment and decree dated
19 October 2024 passed by the learned District Judge-16, Pune in Regular
Civil Appeal No.143 of 2013. The First Appellate Court has set aside the
judgment and decree dated 30 November 2012 passed by the learned
Civil Judge Junior Division, Pune in Regular Civil Suit No. 475 of 2010.
katkam Page No. 1 of 5
k 2/5 10 sa 170.25 w ia as.doc
The Trial Court had dismissed Plaintiffs' suit by judgment and decree
dated 30 November 2012. The First Appellate Court has decreed the suit
by declaring the shares of the parties in the partition suit.
2. I have heard Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the Appellants/original Defendants and Mr. Deo, the
learned counsel appearing for Respondents/Original Plaintiffs.
3. The suit properties were owned and possessed by Genu, who
passed away in the year 1950 leaving behind Krishnabai and three sons
namely, Namdev, Dagdu, and Bhagwan and four daughters Gaubai,
Deubai, Venubai and Chandrabhaga. After death of Genu, the suit
properties were inherited by four sharers viz. Krishnabai, Namdev,
Dagdu, and Bhagwan, each having a 1/4th share in the suit properties.
Krishnabai died in the year 1985. The three brothers, Namdev, Dagdu
and Bhagwan effected a partition in respect of the suit properties by way
of a registered Partition Deed in the year 2009. The sisters were not
given any share in the properties.
4. Partition suit was filed by the four daughters/their heirs claiming
shares in the suit properties. The Trial Court proceeded to hold that the
suit property described in paragraph (1-B) is not the joint family
property. The Trial Court further held that the partition deed dated 20
April 2009 executed between the three brothers was valid. The Trial
Court further held that the suit was not within limitation. Accordingly,
the Trial Court rejected the prayer of Plaintiffs’ for partition of the suit
properties and dismissed the suit.
katkam Page No. 2 of 5
k 3/5 10 sa 170.25 w ia as.doc
5. The First Appellate Court has appreciated the position that after
the death of Genu, the suit properties were inherited by his wife
Krishnabai and three sons Namdev, Dagdu and Bhagwan. Each one of
them had 1/4th share in the suit property. Thus the First Appellate Court
has not assigned any share to the four sisters in the joint family
properties of Genu. Only the wife and three sons inherited Genu’s
properties. The First Appellate Court has held that Krishnabai was alive
when the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937
came into force. She passed away in the year 1985. Upon the death of
Krishnabai, all the seven legal heirs comprising three sons and four
daughters became entitled to inherit Krishnabai's 1/4th share in the suit
property. However, the three brothers Namdev, Dagdu, and Bhagwan
illegally partitioned the suit property among themselves, thereby
depriving their sisters of their shares in respect of the 1/4th share of
Krishnabai.
6. In the present case, the daughters did not claim any independent
share through their father Genu. They admitted the position that the
three brothers, Namdev, Dagdu, and Bhagwan alone are entitled to
inherit 1/4th share in the suit properties alongwith mother. All they
claim is the division of the 1/4th share of Krishnabai amongst all the
seven children. The First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated this
position and has held that the three sons and four daughters are entitled
to share the 1/4th share of Krishnabai.
katkam Page No. 3 of 5
k 4/5 10 sa 170.25 w ia as.doc
7. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, the exclusion of
Plaintiffs occurred on 20 April 2009 when Partition Deed was executed
and the suit filed in the year 2010 was perfectly within limitation.
8. So far as suit property described in paragraph (1-B) is concerned,
the Trial Court did not record an emphatic finding that the same become
exclusive property of Defendant No.2- Bhagwan. On the other hand, the
Trial Court itself held that Genu was the purchaser of the tenanted
property described in paragraph (1-B) of the plaint. More interestingly,
Bhagwan himself never treated the property at paragaph (1-B) of the
plaint as his personal property and subjected the same to partition with
two brothers in the Partition Deed dated 20 April 2009. I am therefore of
the view that the First Appellate Court has rightly held that the suit
property described in paragraph (1-B) of the plaint is also a joint family
property.
9. It appears that out of the four sisters, Deubai and Venubai passed
away during pendency of the suit issueless. Accordingly, the First
Appellate Court has determined shares of three brothers and two sisters
in 1/4th share of Krishnabai. Accordingly, Namdev, Dagdu and Bhagwan
are each allotted 1/4th plus 1/20th share in the suit properties, and the
heirs of Gaubai and Chandrabhaga are allotted 1/20th share each in the
suit property. The exercise undertaken by the First Appellate Court
appeals to this Court. Though the judgment of the First Appellate Court
is not prolific, it captures the essence of dispute between the parties.
I am therefore not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of
katkam Page No. 4 of 5
k 5/5 10 sa 170.25 w ia as.doc
the First Appellate Court only on the ground that it could have recorded
further elaberte reasons in the order. This Court is satisifed with the
ultimate outcome of dispute between the parties. No substantial
question of law is involved in the Appeal. Second Appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
10. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, Interim Application
for stay would not survive and the same is also accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Page No. 5 of 5
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/10/2026 14:50:26
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.