1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SA No. 572 of 2007 Smt Kumud v. Smt Kunda and ors Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr N.P. Dhote, Advocate for appellant Coram: B.P. Dharmadhikari, J Dated : 23rd November 2007 Heard Mr N.P. Dhote, learned counsel for appellant at length. He contends that though Indirabai had initially life interest, whatever estate she had, she relinquished it in favour of her son Purushottam, husband of present appellant. Hence, after 1956 the said relinquished life estate would mature into ownership in favour of Purushottam. He further contended that the decree for partition of family house is unsustainable in view of specific bar contained in Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act. Insofar as bar under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act is concerned, there is a finding that present 2 appellant's husband sold about half portion of said house and strangers are already occupying it. The fact of sale has not been demonstrated to be perverse and as such, no question of law can arise on that account. Once the strangers are shown to be in possession of dwelling house, bar under Section 23 ceases to apply. Further, there is no question of relinquishment of life estate by Indirabai in favour of Purushottam. Hence, the first argument of Mr Dhote also does not carry any substance. Though Mr Dhote wanted to rely on certain judgments, in view of this position, I find that no substantial question of law arises in the appeal and, therefore, judgments to be cited by him need not be referred to and discussed. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Judge. hsj