2005(3) ALL MR 175
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. OKA, J.
Smt. Akkatai Ramu Pawar Vs.Smt. Sunderabai Maruti Kokate
Cross Objections St. No.23148 of 1987,IN Second Appeal No.373 of 1987
20th January, 2005
Petitioner Counsel: V. S. GOKHALE
Respondent Counsel: S. G. DESHMUKH
Civil P.C. (1908), S.100 - Cross-objections in Second appeal - Second appeal decided but Cross-objections remained pending as the same was not brought to the notice of Court - Held, no inconsistent decision can be given in the Cross-objections on the issues which are already decided while deciding the Appeal. (Para 4)
2. The office of this Court found that Cross-Objections filed in the Second Appeal remained pending and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when Second Appeal was decided. When the Second Appeal was placed before the same learned Single Judge it was directed that the cross-objections be placed for final hearing before the regular Court hearing such matters. Accordingly, cross-objections are placed on board today. I have heard the Counsel appearing for the parties.
(1) Whether under the Hindu Widows Property Rights Act (Act 1 of 1935) of the erstwhile Sangli State, Chandrabai acquired a share equal to the share of her son Maruti (that is one-half share in the property of the deceased husband Dadu) and whether that right of hers was perfected under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
(2) Whether Akkatai inherited the 1/2 share of her mother Chandrabai and inherited equally with Sunderabai under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act one-fourth share from the one-half estate of Maruti who died on 14th December, 1962.
(3) Whether in the circumstances, Sunderabai could be entitled to anything more than one-fourth share in the estate and whether in the circumstances the decree of the Appeal Court granting her one-third interest is legal under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act read with the provisions of the Hindu Widows Right to Property Act, 1935 of the erstwhile Sangli State.
(4) Whether Sunderabai was entitled to claim any share in the property of Maruti after she was divorced under a customary divorce and whether such a customary divorce was possible and proved in respect of Sunderabai and Maruti.
4. I have perused the Judgment and Order dated 5th March, 1997 passed by this Court in the Second Appeal. After considering the provisions of enactment No.1 of 1935 of Sangli State this Court has held that Chandrabai was entitled to 3/4th share and original Plaintiff was entitled to 1/4th share. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that no inconsistent decision can be given in the Cross-Objections on the issues which are raised in the Grounds of Cross-Objections and which are already decided while deciding the Second Appeal.