Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M. M. SATHAYE, J.

Baban Sadashiv Sasar and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Nivrutti Sabaji Sasar & Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 367 of 2025 With Interim Application No.8812 of 2025 With Second Appeal No. 374 of 2025 With Interim Application No.2015 of 2025
Decided On : 10-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte, Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w. Mr Rahul Sarda, Mr. Avdhoot Prabhu i/b. Lex Services, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Singh a/w. Mr. Rahul Sarda i/b Lex Services, Advocates, Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar, Advocate, Mr. Vivek Salunke, Advocate.

Timely action is crucial in partition claims; inaction spanning decades bars relief, as established by limitation principles.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1908 - Article 44 - Suit for partition and declaration - Delay in challenging registered sale and gift deeds beyond the limitation period established under the Act - The Appellants sought to set aside documents executed decades ago, claiming ancestral status over properties, but the court found their suit barred by limitation and lacking merit. (Paras 6, 15, 19-20)

(B) Civil Procedure Code - Principles of Partition - The Court emphasized the necessity for timely claims for partition within the established legal framework, with a focus on the presumption of joint family properties being rebutted by evidence of separate possession and long-standing revenue records. (Paras 24-25)

Facts of the case:
The Appellants claimed a 1/2 share in ancestral properties in a suit filed in 2005, despite previous sales in 1927 and 1932 and a gift deed in 1939, which they alleged were sham transactions. The Respondents contended the properties had been sold, transferred, and effectively divided long before the suit was initiated. (Para 5)

Findings of Court:
The court revealed that the Plaintiffs failed to challenge key documents in a timely manner and established that the properties had been separated for decades, effectively rejecting the Plaintiffs' claims. (Para 26)

Issues: The main issues revolved around the timeliness of the suit concerning the limitation period applicable to claims against previous transfers and whether the properties could still be considered joint family assets. (Para 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court found no substantial question of law, confirming the Doctrine of Limitation primarily restricted the Plaintiffs’ ability to claim a partition after an unreasonable delay, coupled with the lack of proof for maintaining ancestral status over properties sold or gifted long ago. (Paras 26-28)

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. disputes over ancestral property ownership. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments related to partition claims and limitations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. limitation rules impact validity of claims based on historical documents. (Para 14 , 24)
4. court's reasoning on property division and limitation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26)
5. lack of substantial questions leads to appeal dismissal. (Para 27)
6. court's final decision on appeals. (Para 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

M. M. SATHAYE, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Second Appeal No.374 of 2025 is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2024 passed by District Judge-2, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.642 of 2011. Second Appeal No.367 of 2025 is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2024 passed by District Judge-2, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.707 of 2011. By the said impugned Judgments and Decrees, appeals are allowed and common Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2011 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1696 of 2005 passed Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, is set aside.

3. Present Appellants are original Plaintiffs and the Respondents are original Defendants.

CASE

4. The said suit was filed for partition and separate possession, declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the Appellants that the suit properties are ancestral properties, which were in possession of one Sabaji Dhondiba Sasar and Sadashiv Dhondiba Sasar. The Appellants are claiming through the branch of Sadashiv and Respondents are from the branch of Sabaji. That partition has not been effected in the family. Dhondiba was the father of Sabaji and Sadashiv. Dhondiba died in November 1918. At that time, Sabaji and Sadashiv were minors and therefore, their uncle Nana was acting as their guardian. Sabaji was elder brother and when he became major his name was mutated in the revenue record. Name of Sadashiv was not entered in the revenue record. On 04.06.1927, Nana sold part of suit properties to Khandu Balaji Jadhav by a registered sale deed. Khandu Balaji Jadhav is an outsider and not part of this family. It is contended that without obtaining the consent of Sabaji and Sadashiv, who were minors, Nana has sold part of the suit properties to Khandu Balaji Jadhav. It is contended that this was a sham and bogus sale deed and Sabaji and Sadashiv continued in possession even after execution of registerted sale deed. Five years after first sale deed, one Ganpat Kanhu Chandere, again an outsider, purchased the said properties from Khandu Balaji Jadhav by registered sale deed dated 09.06.1932. It is contended that even then, the purchasers never became owners and Sabaji and Sadashiv continued to occupy the said properties.

5. Incidently, Ganpat Kanhu Chandere gifted those properties to his daughter Gaoobai and Dagdabai by gift-deeds dated 06.01.1039, out of whom Dagadabai happened to be wife of Sabaji. It is contended that even after execution of gift-deed, Dagdabai never became owner and the properties remained in possession and Sabaji and Sadashiv. It is further contended that though the suit properties were mutated in the name of Sabaji alone, both Sabaji and Sadashiv were cultivating the properties jointly and took income therefrom jointly. It is contended that there was no dispute between Sabaji and Sadashiv. Then it is contended that the Appellants’ mother Housabai and Defendants’ mother Prabhabai were real sister and therefore, the question of partition did not arise. On these contentions, the suit is filed in 2005 seeking partition, separate possession and injunction not to sell and a prayer was added in 2009 challenging registered sale deeds dated 04.06.1927 & 09.06.1932 and gift-deed dated 06.01.1939, seeking declaration that the said documents are not binding on the Appellants’ share and they be canceled. It is the case of the Appellants that these documents are sham and bogus and not binding on the Appellants.

6. The Respondents f