Bombay High Court on Property Rights: Widow’s Possession Upheld in Family Dispute.

The Bombay High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging the lower appellate court’s decision that upheld the plaintiff’s (widow’s) right to possess agricultural land belonging to her deceased husband. Justice Gauri Godse affirmed that the plaintiff had proved lawful possession and ownership through documentary evidence, and the defendants failed to establish any superior right or tenancy claim. The Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, when based on credible evidence, cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC unless a substantial question of law arises.

• The dispute concerned agricultural land originally owned by the plaintiff’s late husband. After his death, the plaintiff claimed possession and ownership.

• The defendants (relatives of the deceased) contended that they were tenants and in continuous possession, seeking to oust the widow.

• The Trial Court ruled in favor of the defendants, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, restoring possession and ownership rights to the widow.

• The defendants filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court challenging the appellate court’s judgment.

• The High Court observed that the lower appellate court had rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence showing the plaintiff’s lawful possession.

• The appellants failed to produce tenancy records or revenue entries proving their possession or tenancy rights.

• Justice Gauri Godse held that findings of fact concurrently recorded by the appellate court cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence.

• The Court emphasized that a widow’s right to retain possession of her husband’s self-acquired property cannot be disturbed without a clear and lawful claim.

• Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Scope of second appeal and interference only on substantial questions of law.

• Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Widow’s right to inherit self-acquired property of the deceased husband.

• Evidence Act, 1872 – Burden of proof regarding possession and ownership.

The second appeal was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the lower appellate court’s findings that the plaintiff (widow) was the rightful possessor and owner of the property. No substantial question of law was found to warrant interference.

Case: Mrs. Anjanabai Rajaram Gore v. Mrs. Manjulabai Baban Gaikwad

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gauri Godse

Date of Decision: 3 November 2025

Second Appeal No.: 326 of 1994