Trimbakrao Ingole expired in 1980 and Ramchandrarao Ingole also passed away on 22.03.1995.
Two companyrts on appreciation of the oral evidence, were satisfied for reasons recorded that Ramchandrarao Ingole was never a beneficiary or in joint ownership of the suit property.
The companydiality ended with the death of Ramchandrarao Ingole.
The findings in favour of the defendants by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are only in the realm of probabilities.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court.
The present sale deed was a unilateral document executed by the vendor alone.
They partitioned among themselves in 1952.
The plaintiffs, as evident from their own pleadings were indulging in speculative litigation, eyeing the vacant area of the suit property.
The companystruction was also raised by him alone from his own funds, acknowledged by PW1 in his evidence.
Ramchandrarao Ingole was held number to be a vendee of the suit property.
It is only after the passing away of Ramchandrarao Ingole that his legal heirs staked claim for partition based merely on the recitals in the sale deed.
Trimbakrao Ingole alone was present at the time of registration and the stamp papers were also purchased by him.
The evidence was in the nature of oath versus oath by the legal heirs of the two brothers.
The parties shall be referred to by their respective positions in the Suit for better appreciation and companyvenience.
The house had been companystructed exclusively by Trimbakrao Ingole from his own funds and who remained in exclusive possession of the same relying on the admissions of PW1 in his evidence.
We have companysidered the submissions on behalf of the parties, perused the respective pleadings and the evidence on record.
It was lastly submitted that the house was built in L shape and by design was incapable of being divided.
The plaintiffs as legal heirs of Ramchandrarao Ingole, relying on the sale deed filed Special Civil Suit No.268 of 1995 seeking partition and possession of their half share in the suit property.
The presumption under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act hereinafter referred to as the Act , by reason of his name being mentioned in the sale deed as a vendee also was rebuttable and number absolute.
of lands, with a house companystructed in 1974 75 thereupon leaving substantial vacant lands, was purchased jointly in the name of the two brothers by sale deed dated 29.03.1957.
Ramchandrarao Ingole never raised any claim for share in the property either during the life time of Trimbakrao Ingole or for fifteen years thereafter till his own death.
Subsequently Ramchandrarao Ingole retracted and was number interested in purchasing the property due to funds crunch.
Shri Pallav Sisodiya, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the suit property was purchased by both the brothers together in view of their companydial relations.
No documentary evidence except for the sale deed was led.
The defendants in their additional written statement had stated that originally both the brothers proposed to purchase the property together.
Thus, the suit came to be filed after his death.
Relying on the recitals in the sale deed, reading the same in companyjunction with Section 45 of the Act, it was submitted that Ramchandrarao Ingole was companywner by operation of law.
The High Court rightly held in the nature of the evidence, that the companyclusions arrived at by the two companyrts below were, therefore, perverse.
The suit property companysists of 7011 sq.
NAVIN SINHA, J. Leave granted.
The plaintiffs acknowledged the companystruction of a house on the suit property, seeking a share in the vacant lands fully aware of the nature of the companystruction which companyld number be partitioned.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by The predecessors of the plaintiffs and the defendants were ARJUN BISHT Date 2019.11.19 180510 IST Reason brothers namely, Ramchandrarao Ingole and Trimbakrao Ingole.
The appellants who were the original defendants in the Suit are aggrieved by the order of the High Court allowing the respondentsplaintiffs Second Appeal, upsetting the companycurrent findings of facts by two companyrts.
