The Bombay High court upheld the legality of the share distribution and computation 

CASE TITLE- Kamlakar Purushotam Inamdar and others Vs Smt. Rajani Shriram Madiwale and others

CASE NUMBER- Second Appeal No.335 Of 2015

DATED ON- 14.06.2024

QUORAM- Hon’ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.


The plaintiff sought partition and the suit properties were owned by the propositus Purshottam Govind Inamdar who expired on 16th August 1971 leaving behind him surviving as his legal heirs his wife Rukminibai, sons Arvind and Kamlakar and the Plaintiffs who are the daughters. In the year 1981 their mother Rukminibai expired and after her death the Plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties. The Plaintiff Nos 1, 2 and 3 got married in the year 1952, 1955 and 1971 respectively and thus were not entitled to claim 1/4th share in the property. The Defendants contented that there had been a partition in 1981, which the Plaintiffs denied. The Defendants claimed the properties had been divided, with Gat No. 149 allotted to Defendant No. 1 and the Padali properties to Arvind. The Plaintiffs and other Defendants disagreed, leading to various depositions about the ancestral and self-acquired nature of the properties and the validity of the alleged 1981 partition.


  • Whether the finding of the 1st Appellate Court that the suit property was the self-acquired property is based on misreading of the evidence on record and the evidence which has come on record?
  • Whether on proper appreciation of the evidence the Plaintiff can be stated to have discharged the burden of proving that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties?
  • Whether the Courts have properly interpreted amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, while granting equal share to the Plaintiffs?


  • Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act 1956
  • Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act 1956.


Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the property at Padali was ancestral property and out of the income of ancestral property, property at Kashidwadi has been purchased. The Plaintiffs did not plead about the nature of properties in the plaint. The Appellate Court erred in holding that there was no controversy about the nature of the properties. The evidence on record is more than sufficient to demonstrate that there was dispute between the parties as regards the property at Kashidwadi whereas the accepted case was that the property at Padali is joint family property. It was contented that the Appellate Court has held the properties to be self-acquired properties and thereby given equal share to the parties which suffers from perversity. It is submitted that by application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC which is filed in the present proceedings the death certificate of Indira is annexed which shows the date of death prior to 2005. It is submitted that if the property at Kashidwadi is held to be the self-acquired property the same would devolve upon the parties in accordance with the intestate succession and in accordance with general rules of succession as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act 1956.


Based on the facts produced during the trial, the respondent in this matter claims that the lower court correctly classified the properties, Kashidwadi and Padali, as ancestral and self-acquired, respectively. They contend that in figuring out the characteristics of these properties and the parties’ rights, the lower court correctly used the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The respondent argues that the appellant’s objection to this classification is without merit and is predicated on an incorrect rea

ding of the relevant legal precedents and supporting data. They further contend that the lower court’s computation of the shares was precise and compliant with all relevant regulations, especially the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The respondent highlights that the lower court appropriately determined the parties’ rights, including the rights of the departed ancestor Indira, and ensured an equal division in accordance with the laws governing succession. As a result, the respondent rejects the appeal and aims to maintain the lower court’s rulings about the division of property, shares, and the application of pertinent laws.


The court considered the appeal in the context of the 1956 Hindu Succession Act, paying special attention to the 2005 modifications. After much deliberation, it was determined that Padali was ancestral and Kashidwadi was a property that Purushotam had self-acquired. In order to determine whether the properties were correctly classified, the court carefully examined the evidence. It dismissed the appellant’s argument and confirmed the lower court’s ruling that Kashidwadi was self-acquired and Padali was ancestral. The court upheld the allocation of shares made by the lower court in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. It was determined that each of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 was entitled to a 7/36th stake in Padali, while the defendants Nos. 4 through 6 were entitled to a 7/36th share jointly, and the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 to a 1/36th share collectively. The court upheld the legality of the share distribution and computation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shreyasi Ghatak

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *