Sheelabai Vasantrao Malode (Smt. Sheelabai D/O Tukaram Digrase ) v. Darshana Vasantrao Malode And Others

15. SA 179.25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.179 OF 2025 Smt. Sheelabai wd/o Vasantrao Malode Vs. Smt. Darshana wd/o Vasantrao Malode and ors.

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. K. J. Topale, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. A. M. Chandekar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 13.10.2025.

.

The marriage of the present appellant with late Vasantrao Malode was solemnized somewhere in the year 1996. Respondent No.1 is the first wife of deceased Vasantrao. Respondent No.2 and 3 are daughters of Vasantrao, begotten from respondent No.1.

2.

The respondents had filed a suit for possession against the present appellant, being Regular Civil Suit No.6 of 2018, seeking possession of the properties owned by Vasantrao. Vasantrao had admittedly died intestate. During the course of evidence of in the said suit, the fact that respondent No.1 is the first wife of deceased Vasantrao was not disputed and it was also admitted that the marriage of appellant with Vasantrao was solemnized in the year 1996, during the lifetime of respondent No.1. 3.

It is thus undisputable that the appellant is the second wife of Vasantrao and that the marriage was solemnized during the lifetime of the first wife. The

15. SA 179.25.odt marriage of Vasantrao with the appellant is, therefore, clearly void and the appellant does not have right to inherit the properties of Vasantrao.

4.

The learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly decreed the suit for possession filed by the respondents. The learned First Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal in the light of these admitted facts. Merely because, in the earlier round of litigation pertaining to terminal dues of deceased Vasantrao, there was a compromise between the parties and pursuant to the said compromise terms, the appellant is receiving monthly family pension after demise of Vasantrao, that by itself will not mean that the marriage of appellant with deceased Vasantrao was a legal and valid marriage. 5.

The appellant cannot claim to be a Class-I legal heir of deceased Vasantrao.

6.

In view of the above, Second Appeal stands dismissed.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Tanmay...