BHANUDAS RAMBHAU MORE Vs. SAVITA MACHINDRA MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sonawane, learned counsel for the AppellantsApplicants, and Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) This Second Appeal is preferred by Original Defendant Nos.1 and 2, challenging concurrent finding of the facts and law, as recorded by both the Courts below by the 'Judgment and Decree' dated 19th November 2013 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.177 of 2010 by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yeola, Dist. Nashik, which is confirmed by the Court of District Judge-1, Niphad in a 'Judgment and Decree' dated 18th April 2018 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.152 of 2013.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case can be stated to the effect that, Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers of deceased Macchhindra. Respondent No.1 is the wife and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of late Macchhindra. They had filed this Suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the suit lands. According to them, the suit land described in paragraph No.1(A) of the plaint was purchased by Macchhindra from his own earnings, which was mutated by deceased Macchindra in the name of his mother Radhabai by way of family arrangement in the year 2000; whereas, the suit land described in paragraph No.1(B) of the plaint was purchased by deceased Macchhindra in the name of Appellant No.2, out of the income from the joint family. It is their further contention that, after the death of Macchhindra on 20th September 2004, Respondents were driven out of the house and as a result, now they are constrained to file this Suit for partition and their share in both the lands, which, according to them, were purchased by Macchhindra from his own earnings and from the income of the joint family respectively.