SRJ fa-1820-09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1820 OF 2009 Ramchandra A. Tapase .. Appellant Vs. Shevantabai A. Tapase (since deceased) through legal heirs Sadashiv A. Tapase & Others .. Respondents Mr. P.K.Kadam, for Appellant. Mr. B.A.Walimbe for Respondent Nos.2,3,4A to 4C and 5. CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010. P.C. : 1] This appeal was peremptorily scheduled for final hearing. 2] This appeal arises out of judgment and decree rendered in Special Civil Suit No.449 of 2000. By the impugned judgment, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karad decreed the suit to the extent of partition of house property and the agricultural land enumerated in the suit claim but declined relief of possession to the extent of three house properties which are indicated in para 1-C. SRJ fa-1820-09.sxw 2 3] Having heard learned advocate and on consideration of the relevant material, it is explicit that the dispute relates only to the extent of three house properties which are described in para 1-C, bearing CS No. 120, 121 and 122. The Appellant is original Plaintiff. He claims possession of the above referred property on the ground that he is exclusive owner thereof. His case before the Trial Court was that he had purchased the property bearing no.121 and 122 separately by using his own funds. He further says that property bearing no.120 was separately owned by his father and the same was alienated in his favour by virtue of sale deed dated 30th December, 1975. 4] The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the Appellant failed to establish his exclusive ownership in respect of the above referred three properties. The Appellant is aggrieved by the said findings. 5] What emerges from the record is that such finding is recorded because the Appellant did not produce the two sale deeds pertaining to alleged purchase of the house properties bearing CS No.121 and 122. It was noticed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court that the record indicates purchase of CS No.121 on 10th September, 1952 for amount of Rs.400/- where as CS No.122 was purchased for Rs.1000/-. Considering the fact that at the relevant time, father of the appellant was the karta of the joint Hindu family and was having other landed SRJ fa-1820-09.sxw 3 properties, inference can be drawn that the suit houses were purchased by the father in his name. Considering the Appellant s age and the age of his father at the relevant time, it is but natural that his father was manger of the joint family of his branch. It appears that father of the Appellant was earning income from traditional business of leather tanning, vending and also by agricultural resources. It cannot be said that the houses were acquired by the Appellant himself, unless there is some proof to infer that he utilized his own income for the purpose. He did not produce either of the sale deeds in question. In respect of transfer of CS No.120, the learned Civil Judge has noticed that the payment of consideration by the Appellant to his father is not proved. It appears that the Appellant was suffering from mental disorder and he was required to be treated for said purposes. The Trial Court, therefore, held that there was possibility that the sale deed was executed by father of the Appellant on 30th December, 1975 in respect of CS No.120 in order to mollify the Appellant. In any case, the said internal transactions also could not be believed for the reason that the sale deed reflects the status of the Appellant (Plaintiff) as manager of the joint family. He did not prove payment of any consideration to the father. Hence, that sale deed is hallow and could not bestow exclusive title on the Appellant. SRJ fa-1820-09.sxw 4 6] In the circumstances noted above and for the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed with no costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J)