Shri Nanda Sonu Raikar @ Nanda S. Naik and his wife and Mrs. Premavati Nanda Raikar vs Geeta Ratan Shinde and Others

F.M. Reis, J

Heard Shri M. S. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. The above Second Appeal challenges the Judgment passed by the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the Appellants to declare that Judgment passed in the Inventory Proceedings no. 4896/1966, be declared null and void and for a declaration that the Appellants are the co-owners of the suit property. A further relief was sought for permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering in the suit property.

Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has assailed the impugned Judgment essentially on the ground that there is no dispute that the property originally belonged to a common ancestor and that the rights have devolved upon the co-owners including the Appellants herein. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Courts below have failed to consider that there was an admission on the part of the Respondents in their written statement that the property originally belonged to the common ancestor. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Courts below have proceeded on the assumption that the Inventory Proceedings had created a declaration in favour of the persons to whom the property came to be allotted. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the findings rendered by the Courts below are perverse and as such it calls for interference of this Court u/s 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the evidence on record, I find that the Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the Appellants have failed to establish the ownership in respect of the suit property. Apart from that, the Courts below have also considered the fact that after the Inventory Proceedings came to be disposed of, there was an acquisition in respect of the suit property and the Appellants had not made any claim to the compensation awarded in such proceedings. Besides that, the learned Judge has also on the basis of appreciation of evidence come to the conclusion that the Appellants have failed to establish any claim of ownership in respect of the suit property. Such concurrent findings of fact arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record, cannot be interfered by this Court u/s 100 of the CPC as no perversity had been pointed out in such findings.

With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants to the effect that the Courts below have arrived at the conclusion that the Appellants have no right to the suit property merely because the property has been allotted in the inventory proceedings. I find that it is well settled that the Inventory Proceedings are initiated only for determining the shares of the parties and does not in any way effect the rights of the third parties to any properties if at all they are so entitled. In the present case, the contentions of Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants to the effect that the Courts below have passed the impugned Judgment merely on the basis of the Inventory Proceedings, cannot be accepted. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record that the Appellants have failed to establish their ownership and title thereof. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants was unable to point out that the Courts below have failed to consider any piece of evidence produced by the Appellants whilst arriving at such findings. Merely because the parties have a common ancestor by itself would not establish that the Appellants have a right to the suit property. The Appellants have failed to establish that they have exercised any ownership or possession over the suit property. There is no iota of evidence adduced by the Appellants that they have exercised any possession over the suit property or that any person has exercised such possession on their behalf. As such I find that no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal which calls for any interference u/s 100 of the CPC by this Court. Hence the Appeal stands dismissed with no Order as to costs.