Court Upholds Final Partition Decree, Dismisses Late Will Submission by Defendant No.8 Defendant's attempt to modify shares based on a newly surfaced Will rejected; court emphasizes finality of judicial proceedings.

Case Note & Summary

This Writ Petition challenges the rejection of Defendant No.8's application by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nashik, which sought to frame issues and modify shares in a partition suit based on a newly produced Will. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the partition decree as final and binding.

Introduction Writ Petition: Challenges the order rejecting the framing of issues based on a newly surfaced Will. Executing Court: Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nashik. Final Decree Application No.7 of 2019: Application filed by Defendant No.8 for modifying shares determined by the preliminary decree. Brief Facts Suit Property: Non-agricultural land with a structure, located at M.G. Road, Old Lamp Road, Deolali, Shiwar, Nashik. Partition Suit: Filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for partition and separate possession of the Suit property. Original Ownership: Tulshiram Ratanchandra Mantri, who died intestate in 1975, survived by two sons and six daughters. Initial Shares: Each of the eight siblings was entitled to a 1/8th share. Legal Proceedings: Multiple appeals by Defendant No.8 were dismissed, rendering the partition decree final. Defendant No.8's Claims New Will: Produced a registered Will claiming a 43.75% share, necessitating a re-determination of shares. Application for Framing Issues: Filed to modify the shares based on the new Will. Court's Rejection: The Executing Court rejected this application. Legal Arguments Petitioner's Advocate: Argued for considering the Will to frame new issues. Respondent's Advocate: Questioned the authenticity of the Will produced 50 years later, suggesting it was an attempt to delay execution proceedings. Court's Findings Changed Circumstances and the Will: The decree is final and absolute, with no provision for re-determination of shares based on the new Will. Failure in Due Diligence: The Will was not mentioned in earlier pleadings, indicating a lack of due diligence. Constructive Res Judicata: Prevents re-litigation of issues that could have been raised earlier. Supreme Court Precedents: An executing court cannot question a decree's validity unless it is a nullity. Historical Context: Consistent rejection of Defendant No.8's claims across judicial stages. Execution Proceedings: The Executing Court's role is to enforce the decree as it stands. Conclusion Dismissal of Writ Petition: The Petitioner's pleas were untimely and lacked due diligence. Cost and Compliance: Defendant No.8 directed to pay costs and remove obstructions from the suit property. Interim Application under Section 340 CrPC: Careful consideration needed; evidence suggests no false submissions by Respondents.

The court upheld the partition decree and directed timely execution proceedings.