Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: S.C.Suit No. 375/2020. 1 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.26).
MHCC010134822019
Presented on : 21-12-2019
Registered on : 01-02-2020
Decided on : 12-12-2025
Duration : 5 years, 11 months, 22 days
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GR. BOMBAY.
S. C. SUIT NO. 375 OF 2020
EXHIBIT NO.26.
Mr. Ravindra Raghunath Gole, )
Age 44 Years, Indian Inhabitant, )
residing at Flat No. 144, 3rd Floor, )
Building No. 331, Naidu Colony, )
Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar East, )
Mumbai 400075 )...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Vandana Raghunath Gole, )
Age 65 years, Indian Inhabitant, )
Residing at :- Flat No. 13, 3rd Floor, )
B Wing, Khanta Apartment, Pant Nagar, )
Ghatkopar East, Mumbai 400075 )
2. Smt. Namrata Nitin Kharose, )
Age 47 years, Indian Inhabitant, )
Residing at :- Flat No. 13, 3rd Floor, )
B Wing, Khanta Apartment, Pant Nagar, )
Ghatkopar East, Mumbai 400075 )
3. Malati Raghunath Gole, )
Age 65 years, Indian Inhabitant, )
Residing at :- Flat No. 13, 3rd Floor, )
B Wing, Khanta Apartment, Pant Nagar, )
Ghatkopar East, Mumbai 400075 )...Defendants
-- 1 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 375/2020. 2 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.26).
Appearances :
Shri Shivaji Farakate, Advocate for the plaintiff.
None for defendants. (Ex-parte).
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI P. G. BHOSALE.
(COURT ROOM NO.62).
DATE : 12th DECEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 12/12/2025)
1. This is a suit for declaration that the Will executed by the
Grandmother of the plaintiff and defendants no.2 and 3 dated
30/04/2005 and bearing Registration No. BDR13/3617/2005 is valid,
subsisting and binding upon the defendants.
2. The plaintiff states that defendant no.1 is his mother, and
defendants no.2 and 3 are his sisters. He states that his Late
Grandmother (mother’s mother) Smt. Bhagiratibai Sakharam Sakpal
was owner and in possession of three properties :
1. One Room premises bearing No. 4413 situated at Building No.
159, Navjivan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Naidu Colony,
Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai 400075.
2. One shop bearing No. 10 viz. Santosh General Stores, situated
Opp. Building No. 159, Naidu Colony, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar
East, Mumbai 400075.
3. Land bearing Survey No. 78/1/67, Dhavre Cort, Nagaon, Taluka
Mahad, District Raigadh, Maharashtra.
The plaintiff states that his Grandmother loved him very much and she
wanted to transfer the above properties in his name. However when she
was about to do so, his mother i.e. defendant no.1 suggested to transfer
-- 2 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 375/2020. 3 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.26).
the suit properties in her name and after her death the above properties
be transferred in the plaintiff’s name. Accordingly his grandmother
made a conditional Will wherein she recorded all the conditions and
registered her Will. His grandmother’s Will was registered vide entry
No. BDR13/3617/2005 dated 30/04/2005. His grandmother had
specifically mentioned that the immovable properties would go to her
two daughters and after the death of one of the daughter, to her
grandson. The plaintiff states that it is condition precedent that the
grandmother’s properties will be transferred in the name of defendant
no.1 and after the death of defendant no.1 in his name.
3. The plaintiff states that his grandmother Smt. Bhagiratibai
Sakpal died on 07/03/2008. After her death, his mother transferred one
of the suit property bearing room premises No. 4413, Building No. 159,
Navjivan Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Naidu Colony, Pant
Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai in her name. The plaintiff is working
as a bus conductor in BEST. He states that his relations with his mother
and sisters are not cordial. The defendants are trying to alienate the suit
properties. The plaintiff and the defendants have exchanged notices
amongst themselves. The suit room premises is going for redevelopment
and therefore the plaintiff has issued notice to the builder, MHADA and
society and mentioned all the facts to them. The plaintiff is residing
with the defendant no.1 in joint family. His address is mentioned same
as of the suit premises in his Ration Card and Aadhar Card. However,
now the defendant no.1 wants to cheat him and wants to transfer the
suit room premises in the name of defendant no.2 illegally. The plaintiff
states that the defendant no.1 has no right to transfer the suit room
premises nor create any third party rights in the ancestral property. The
defendant no.1 cannot change the contents of the Will. He states that if
-- 3 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 375/2020. 4 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.26).
the defendant no.1 transfers the suit room premises in the name of
defendant no.2 during her lifetime, without his consent, then it would
not be binding upon him and null and void. Therefore the plaintiff is
constrained to file the suit for declaration that the Will of his
grandmother Smt. Bhagiratibai Sakpal dated 30/04/2005 bearing No.
BDR13/3617/2005 is valid, subsisting and binding upon the
defendants. The plaintiff prays for declaration that the defendant no.1
has no right to transfer, alienate, gift, part with possession, deal with,
sell or create any rights in favour of defendant no.2 or anybody in
respect of suit room premises. Lastly the plaintiff has prayed to decree
the suit.
4. The suit summons were duly served upon the defendants.
The defendants failed to appear and file their written statement and
contest the suit. So the suit proceeded Ex-parte against them.
5. Upon hearing the advocate of the plaintiff, reading the
plaint, the following points arise for my consideration. I have decided
them along with reasons as under :
SR.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
declaration that the registered Will of his
Late Grandmother Smt. Bhagiratibai
Sakpal is valid, subsisting and binding
upon the defendants ?
‘Yes.’
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
declaration that the defendant no.1 during
her lifetime has no right to transfer,
alienate, gift, part with possession, deal
with, create any rights in favour of
‘Yes.’
-- 4 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 375/2020. 5 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.26).
defendant no.2 or any other person in
respect of the suit room premises ?
3. What order and decree ? ‘The suit is
decreed as per
final order.’
REASONS
6. The plaintiff has filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief
below Exh.6. He has reiterated the contents of the plaint in his affidavit
of examination-in-chief. He has also filed lists of documents (Exh.7 and
9) and has relied upon the following documents :
Sr.No. Particulars Exhibit No.
1. Original Death Certificate of Bhagirathi
Sakharam Sakpal.
Exh.10.
2. Certified Copy of the Will of Smt. Bhagirathi
Sakharam Sakpal.
Exh.11.
3. Original Notice issued by the plaintiff to the
MHADA dated 14/02/2011.
Exh.12.
4. Original Notice issued by the plaintiff to Smt.
Vandana Raghunath Gole dated 31/08/2019;
and to the Secretary of the Society; and to
the M/s. Man Infra Construction Ltd.
Exh.13, 14 and
15.
5. Original unclaimed envelopes by Smt.
Vandana Gole and Secretary of the society.
Exh.16 and 17.
6. Original Aadhaar Card of Ravindra
Raghunath Gole (Plaintiff).
Exh.18.
7. Original Aadhaar Card of Vidya Ravindra
Gole (Wife of plaintiff).
Exh.19.
8. Original Aadhaar Card of Tanvi Ravindra
Gole (Daughter of plaintiff).
Exh.20.
9. Original Aadhaar Card of Tanaya Ravindra
Gole (Daughter of plaintiff).
Exh.21.
10. Letter issued by WYETH Laboratories Ltd. to
the plaintiff on his address of the suit
Exh.22.
-- 5 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 375/2020. 6 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.26).
premises.
11. The discharge card of Pancholi Hospital in
the name of wife of the plaintiff to show the
address of the suit premises.
Exh.23.
12. The xerox copy of the first page of the
savings passbook of the plaintiff with the
Sangli Bank.
Exh.24.
The plaintiff has closed his evidence by filing pursis below Exh.25.
AS TO POINTS NO.1 AND 2 :-
7. A ‘Will’ carries a presumption of due execution and
genuineness and the burden of proof lies heavily on the party
challenging the Will. Section 68 of Evidence Act states that any
document that is registered and executed in accordance with the law is
deemed to be genuine and properly executed. The Will being duly
registered, attracted presumption of due execution and genuineness
under Section 68 of Evidence Act. There is no dispute about the
genuineness of the Will of Late Bhagiratibai Sakpal, the grandmother of
the plaintiff.
8. As per the Will, the Testator Smt. Bhagiratibai Sakharam
Sakpal has bequeathed her three properties to her daughters during
their lifetime and after their death to their children. Accordingly the suit
room premises is transferred in the name of her daughter Smt. Vandana
Raghunath Gole. This property is bequeathed to her during her lifetime
only and after her death this property will be bequeathed upon her son
i.e. the plaintiff Ravindra Raghunath Gole. As per Section 125 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925, conditional Will is valid and legal. So the
grandmother could have bequeathed the property to her daughter
during her lifetime and thereafter to her children.
-- 6 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 375/2020. 7 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.26).
9. Even if the relations between the plaintiff and defendant
no.1 are notcordial, are strained, that doesn’t mean that the defendant
no.1 has right to transfer, alienate, gift or part away the suit premises to
her daughters or anybody else. The defendant no.1 cannot act against
the Will of her mother. She has limited right to enjoy the suit premises
only during her lifetime and thereafter the property will devolve upon
her son and daughters. The plaintiff has proved that his mother
defendant no.1 is trying to alienate the suit property in favour of other
defendants. The defendant no.1 had issued notices to the plaintiff
through her advocate and expressed her desire to transfer or alienate
the suit properties. The defendant no.1 cannot act beyond the
conditions of the Will. When the defendant no.1 has chosen to accept
the inheritance of her mother, she is bound to adhere to the terms and
conditions set by her in her Will. She cannot go against the desire of her
mother. The interests of the plaintiff need to be protected.
10. The defendants have neither appeared, nor they have filed
their written statement, they have not cross-examined the plaintiff.
They have not adduced their own evidence. The evidence of the plaintiff
is unchallenged and it has to be accepted as it is. Therefore the plaintiff
is entitled for the declaration that the Will executed by his grandmother
dated 30/04/2005 bearing Registration No. BDR13/3617/2005 is valid,
subsisting and binding upon the defendants. The plaintiff is also entitled
for declaration that the defendant no.1 during her lifetime has no right
to transfer, alienate, gift, part with possession, deal with, create any
rights in favour of defendant no.2 or any other person in respect of the
suit room premises. Accordingly I answer both the points in the
affirmative and decree the suit of the plaintiff in his favour as under :
-- 7 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 375/2020. 8 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.26).
- ORDER -
1. The suit is decreed.
2. It is hereby declared that the Registered Will executed by Late
Smt. Bhagiratibai Sakharam Sakpal bearing No.
BDR13/3617/2005 dated 30/04/2005 is valid, subsisting and
binding upon the defendants.
3. It is hereby declared that the defendant no.1 has no right during
her lifetime to transfer, alienate, gift, part with the possession,
sell, or create any rights in favour of defendant no.2 or any other
person in respect of the suit room premises, shop and 50% share
in the land bearing Survey No. 78/1/67, Dhavre Cort, Nagaon,
Taluka Mahad, District Raigadh, Maharashtra.
4. No order as to costs.
5. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(P.G.BHOSALE)
Judge, City Civil Court,
(Court Room No.62)
Date : 12/12/2025. Mumbai.
1. Directly dictated on computer on : 12/12/2025.
2. Checked on : 12/12/2025.
3. Signed on : 12/12/2025.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
-- 8 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 375/2020. 9 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.26).
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
12/12/2025. 5.56 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni.
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri P.G.Bhosale.
(Court Room No.62).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 12/12/2025.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 12/12/2025.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 12/12/2025.
-- 9 of 9 --