RAJU S/O UTTAM DAGWAL v. VENUBAI W/O FAKIRA MAWALE (DEAD) THR. LRS. BALU FAKIRA MAWALE AND ANOTHER
CAS/629/2023 · 2026-09-09
body2023
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2023 DAILYLAW 3167 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2023 DAILYLAW 3167 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 / 4 22-538-23(4) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NOS. 538/2023, 539/2023, 629/2023 AND CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 70/2024 IN CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.188 OF 2021 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 8136 OF 2020 Raju Uttam Dagwal Vs. Venubai Fakira Mawale and anr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.B.D.Vora, counsel for the applicant/Appellant. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 09/09/2026
1. Heard. 2. The applications are for condonation of delay of 190 days in filing of the application for setting aside abatement order passed against the respondent No.1, for bringing the name of legal heirs of respondent No.1 on record and for correcting the date of death of respondent No.1. . 3. Notices were issued to the proposed legal heirs of respondent No.1, but nobody is present before the Court today. There is delay of 190 days in setting aside the abatement. The respondent No.1 died during the period of Covid-19, and therefore, there is delay. Kavita 2026:BHC-NAG:12044
2 / 4 22-538-23(4)
4. Considering the reasons given in the applications, the applications are allowed and the delay is condoned, the abatement is set aside. The Legal representatives of the respondent No.1 are allowed to bring on record. The applicant/appellant to carry out the amendment within a period of two weeks and correct the date of death of respondent No.1. 5. All the civil applications stand disposed of. CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.188 OF 2021
1. This is an application for condonation of 123 days delay in filing of the appeal. 2. The reason given in the application is that during the Covid period, the physical filing was restrained and therefore, the delay is caused. 3. Considering the reasons given in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 123 days caused in filing of the appeal, is hereby condoned. 4. The Registry is directed to register the appeal. 5. Civil application stands disposed of. SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 8136 OF 2020
1. The applicant has filed the present application under Part IX, Chapter I of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking grant of probate. 2. The learned Trial Court allowed the application Kavita
3 / 4 22-538-23(4) and granted probate. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants preferred an appeal.
The learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal on the following proposed substantial questions of law:- A] Whether the Lower Appellate Court completely ignore the evidence of attesting witness to categorically stayed that before the execution of documents, the will was read over to Sarubai and she admit the contents and thereafter she applied the thumb impression and thereafter he applied his signature. This fact itself sufficient to hold that will is proved as per the Section 68 of Evidence Act as well as Succession Act which resulted the perversity in the finding recorded by the Lower Appellant Court?. B] Whether Lower Appellate Court recorded the perverse finding with respective the relinquishment deed by way of registered instrument and two daughters by way of oral and thus the Sarubai was become the owner of the suit property, therefore she had competent to make a Will?. C] Whether finding recorded by Lower Appellate Court with respect to the right to make a Will Deed is perverse as the respondent No.1 and 2 never claimed the suit property after the death of husband of sarubai and neither challenged mutation entries. Thus, the Sarubai become the absolute owner of the property in question?. Kavita
4 / 4 22-538-23(4)
4. Issue notice to the respondents on the above mentioned proposed substantial question of law, returnable on 09/10/2026. JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 10/09/2026 18:40:58