The Bombay High Court held that a granddaughter has no right, title, or interest in a property once her mother and aunt accepted a court-approved family settlement and lawfully sold the property. Execution proceedings cannot be reopened.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has ruled that a granddaughter cannot claim any right, title, or interest in a property once her mother and aunt, being the legal heirs, have accepted a court-recognised family settlement and the property has been lawfully sold to a third party. The Court further held that such a granddaughter cannot be impleaded as a decree holder in execution proceedings, especially when the property does not belong to her branch of the family.
Background of the Case
The judgment arose from a long-pending dispute over a property in Shivaji Nagar, Bhamburda, Pune, involving multiple generations, mortgage litigation, tenant eviction proceedings, and execution of decrees.
The property originally belonged to Trimbak Hari Awate, who mortgaged it in 1947 to Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya. Following default, mortgage litigation culminated in a court auction, at which the property was purchased by the Court Nazir on behalf of the decree holder, thereby crystallising ownership through the judicial process.
Despite the auction, the property continued to be occupied by tenants and sub-tenants, leading to eviction suits before the Small Causes Court, Pune. These suits were decreed in 1968, and after multiple appeals, the eviction decrees were ultimately upheld by the Bombay High Court in 1980.
Family Settlement and Property Distribution
After the death of Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya, his estate was dealt with through a court-approved family arrangement involving his legal heirs:
- Vasudeo Vaidya (son)
- Sushama Bapat (daughter)
- Shashikala Patankar (daughter, deceased), represented by her husband and natural guardian of her children
Under this settlement:
- Properties were segregated among the three family branches
- Each branch accepted its share voluntarily
- The suit property involved in the eviction decree fell exclusively to the branch of Vasudeo Vaidya
The Court noted that the family arrangement was acted upon, and possession of allotted properties was enjoyed for over four decades without objection.
Vasudeo Vaidya had entered into an agreement to sell his share of the property before his death. After his demise, his sister Sushama Bapat, as the sole legal heir, executed a registered sale deed in favour of Mohini Resorts Private Limited.
By virtue of this sale:
- Mohini Resorts acquired lawful ownership
- It also obtained the right to continue execution proceedings for tenant eviction
The resort company subsequently initiated execution proceedings to recover possession from unauthorised occupants.
At this stage, Asha Patankar, the granddaughter of Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya and daughter of Shashikala Patankar, filed an application seeking:
- Impleadment as a decree holder
- Recognition of her alleged inherited interest
- Reopening of family partition issues
She argued that the partition had not been completed by metes and bounds and claimed an ongoing right in the property.
Bombay High Court’s Observations
Justice Milind N. Jadhav categorically rejected the granddaughter’s claim, making the crucial observations:
1. No Nexus with the Decree
The eviction decree being executed flowed solely from the transaction with Vasudeo Vaidya, and not from the branch of Shashikala Patankar.
2. Rights Already Represented
The Court held that the granddaughter’s rights were duly represented by her father and natural guardian during the family settlement proceedings before the District Court.
3. Family Settlement Final and Binding
Once a court-approved family arrangement has been accepted and acted upon, an executing court cannot go beyond the decree or reopen settled title issues.
4. Long Acquiescence Bars Fresh Claims
The Court emphasised that the parties had enjoyed their respective properties for over 40 years, and such delayed claims were legally untenable.
The Bombay High Court reaffirmed several settled principles of execution law. It held that an executing court cannot go behind the decree or reopen issues that have already attained finality. The Court emphasised that impleadment in execution proceedings is permissible only when the applicant establishes a clear and direct nexus with the decree being executed.
It further reiterated that family settlements, once accepted by the parties and acted upon, are binding and cannot be questioned at a belated stage. The Court clarified that disputes relating to partition or allegations that partition was not carried out by metes and bounds cannot be entertained in execution proceedings.
Importantly, the Court held that heirs belonging to one settled branch of a family cannot claim rights in property that has been lawfully allotted to another branch under a court-recognised family arrangement.
The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the order of the Small Causes Court that had allowed the granddaughter’s impleadment application.
“The granddaughter has no right, title or interest in the subject property which belongs to the branch of Vasudeo Vaidya.”
The writ petition was allowed, with no costs, and the Court declined to stay the judgment despite a request to approach the Supreme Court.
Case Title:
M/s. Mohini Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shankar Godaji Gore and Anr.
WRIT PETITION NO.3778 OF 2018
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Family Property Dispute