Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The suit was fled in the year 1982. The documents fled in this appeal along with Civil Application No. 365 of 2014 show that sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of Moreshwar Deotale is of the year 2003.
The 7/12 extracts of Survey No. 49/3, 24 and 25/1 show the name of plaintiff as “Pandhari Fakira Mude. All the material documents filed/proved by the defendants clearly show that appellant is not the son of Mahadeo Mude. He was given in adoption to Fakira Mude when plaintif was aged about two years. Since then, plaintiff is behaving a a son of Fakira Mude. The admission of plaintiff in his cross-examination is very material. In the cross-examination, plaintiff has stated that defendant nos. 1 and 3 never cultivated the land of Fakira. He has denied material pleadings in the plaint in the cross examination.
He has stated in his cross-examination that he was cultivating sixteen acres of land along with Fakira. He had purchased nine acres of land from one Kalamkar and he sold that land to Upase. He has further stated that land was purchased from the income of agricultural lands of Fakira. This itself shows that he was residing with Fakira and as a son he had purchased agricultural land from Kalamkar out of the income of agricultural land of Fakira. From the perusal of the cross-examination of the plaintiff, it appears that he has given evasive answers. In view of the material documents placed on record, his evidence is not reliable. It appears from his cross-examination that all the documents [Exhs.133 to 144] were collected by his son after filing of the suit. The main brain for filing the suit is not the plaintiff, but his son. The admission of plaintiff in his cross-examination shows that his father Mahadeo died in 1963. Since then, till filing of the suitin the year 2001, he did not claim any partition from the defendants.
The silence for a long time on the part of plaintiff itself shows that he was given in adoption to Fakira. His conduct shows that he is adoptive son of Fakira. His admissions and documents clearly show that he has inherited the property left by his adoptive father Fakira. Therefore, he cannot claim any partition in the property of his real father Mahadeo.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Second Appeal No. 79 of 2007
Pandhari Mahadeo Mude, Vs Vithoba Mahadeo Mude,
CORAM : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.
Dated : 17th October, 2019
