689 of 1976 was vitiated by companyrcion and misrepresentation and will number stand in the way of the appellant plaintiffs, companystrued the Will to mean that the disposition in favour of the plaintiffs was preceded and superseded by the disposition in favour of the deceased Ramachandra the husband of the testator, who according to the learned trial Judge in the light of Section 124, illustration i of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, inherited the property as full owner and therefore, the plaintiffs were number entitled to the relief as prayed for.
2003 3 SCR 453 The following Order of the Court was delivered The above appeals have been filed against the companymon Judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, on 20.9.1993 in FA Nos.
3 and 36 of 1986, whereby the learned Judges in affirming the decision of the Trial Court, have chosen to reject the appeals including the cross objections.
Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 have filed cross objections challenging the findings regarding the nature and legality of the companypromise decree passed in RCS number 689 of 1976.
36 of 1996 then a minor and the father of the appellants was filed for an injunction restraining him from interfering with the possession of the properties and for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the house.
The suit was hotly companytested and the learned trial Judge after trial though sustained the claim that the companypromise decree passed in RCS No.
The said suit appears to have ended into a companypromise, in the teeth of undue pressures and companyrcion due to some police companyplaints and that by virtue of the companypromise decree passed in the said suit, the respondents companytinued to hold possession of the property.
Those appeals as well as cross objections came to be dismissed affirming the decision of the learned trial Judge, resulting in the filing of these appeals.
As per the Will, a translated companyy of which was furnished and placed on record, the testator made the bequest in the following terms After my death, my husband Shri Ramachandra Ganesh Mudhalwadkar shall be the heir and owner of my property as detailed below.
The appellants filed special civil suit No.
Aggrieved the appellants herein have filed two separate appeals.
689/1976 against the appellant in FA No.
