-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.605 OF 2002 APPEAL NO.605 OF 2002 APPEAL NO.605 OF 2002 Maruti Shivaji Chavan ...Appellant vs. Shivaji Dattu Chavan ...Respondent Mr.Dyaneshwar Deshmukh for the Appellant CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 5, 2008. : FEBRUARY 5, 2008. : FEBRUARY 5, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the Appellant. The Appellant is the original defendant. The Respondent-plaintiff is the father of the Appellant. Admittedly, the suit property is owned by the Appellant’s mother. The Appellant’s mother expired in the year 1975. The Respondent filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In view of the provisions of the section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956, the trial court held that the Appellant and the Respondent had 1/2nd share each. Therefore, a preliminary decree has been passed by the trial court and the said decree has been confirmed in the Appeal by the Appellate Court. 2. The submission of the Advocate for the Appellant is that the Appellant’s mother expired in the year 1975 and since then the Appellant is in exclusive possession of the suit property and his name has been entered in the revenue record. His submission is that from 1975 till 7th November 1994 i.e. the -2- date of filing the suit, the Respondent never disputed the right of the Appellant and he never raised any objection regarding exclusive possession of the Appellant. It is therefore submitted that the Respondent is estopped from filing the suit and claiming any share in the suit property. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. I find that the courts below are right in holding that the Respondent-father was entitled to 1/2nd share in the suit property. Even assuming that the Appellant was in exclusive possession from 1975, it will not extinguish undivided share of the Respondent father. Hence, the courts below are right in discarding the plea of estoppel raised by the Appellant. There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE