1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.1635/2005 with C.A.NO.11251/2005. (Nitin Balaji Sontakke Vs. Balaji Manika Sontakke) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.MP Narwadkar, Advocate for the appellant; Ms.Bharati Gunjal, ADv. h/for Mr. SV Kurundkar for Respondent. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15 th April, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) The decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 5/2000 was challenged in First Appeal being Appeal No.59/2003. The learned Appellate Court confirmed the decree. Consequently, the defendants have debated the same. 3) The learned Counsel, appearing for the defendant/son, then minor, submits, the substantial question of law in the matter would be - The effect of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, as the father Balaji was tried and though acquitted, he will face the rigour of 2 legal position. 4) The law is well settled. It is a matter of record, Balaji was acquitted from the charges levelled against him of the homicidal death to his wife. This Court (in the matter of Sarita Chauwhan Vs. Chetan Chauwhan - A.I.R. 2007 Bombay 133), has taken recourse to the legal position and held, - that since after the trial the appellant is acquitted, it cannot be said that appellant is a person, who has committed murder or abetted commission of murder of her husband,the deceased, and, therefore, she is entitled and qualified to succeed the property. 5) In view of this legal position, the acquittal of Respondent/Balaji by itself will provide a lever to stake claim in the property of his wife, as a successor to her. It is a matter of record, that the plaintiff/Balaji was shown in other columns of rights by virtue of mutation entry No.36 dated 9.12.1994 while 3 appellant/Nitin, the minor, was shown in the column of ownership and cultivation. The Court justifiably found that the defendant Nitin could not be branded to be an absolute owner of the property left over by his mother and plaintiff's entitlement to the property of his wife Sughandha was justifiably accepted. No merit. The substantial question of law, as sought to be formulated would not be available to be so done. Second Appeal dismissed with CA. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/sa1635.05