2025:BHC-NAG:5157 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

SECOND APPEAL NO. 292/2024

1. Smt. Meerabai wd/o. Rangrao Raut, Aged about 65 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Pendhri, Post-Dahegaon/Parseoni, Tah. Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur.

2. Sau. Sunita w/o. Bhimraoji Sahare, Aged about 40 yrs., Occ. Household, R/o. Nevurwada, Post, Navegaon Khairi, Tah. Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur.

3. Sau. Savita w/o. Ashok Diwate, Aged about 35 yrs., Occ. Household, R/o. Bhulewadi, Post Navegaon Khairi, Tah. Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur.

4. Sau. Seema w/o. Murlidhar Diwate, Aged about 33 yrs., Occ. Household, R/o. Salaimeta, Post Seoni (Bhondki)

Tah. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur.

5. Sau. Nirmala w/o. Sanjay Donarkar, aged abut 30 yrs., Occ. Household, R/o. Bhandarbodi, Tah. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur.

6. Sau. Vidya W/o. Rahul Kamble, Aged about 27 yrs., Occ. Household, R/o. Athawadi Bazar, Yavatmal.

…. APPELLANT (Org. Plaintiffs)

(On R.A.)

VERSUS Rajaram Krushnaji Raut, aged abut 53 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Pendhri (Nimba), Tah. Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur.

….RESPONDENT (Org. Defendant)

(On. R.A.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Nitin Lambat, Advocate for appellants. Mr. R.T. Anthony, Advocate for respondent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATED : 09/05/2025.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. The suit property was initially owned by one Rangarao Raut who expired on 04.11.1987. He was survived by his widow and five daughters. The widow of Rangarao namely Meerabai has sold the suit property to the defendant vide registered sale-deed dated 20.04.1989. Admittedly, permission as contemplated under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (“Act of 1956”) is not sought prior to execution of sale-deed dated 20.04.1989. In this backdrop, Meerabai widow and her five daughters filed Regular Civil Suit No. 12/2011 challenging the sale-deed dated 20.04.1989 executed by Meerabai in favour of dependant Rajaram. The sale-deed is executed in favouf of defendant by Meerabai for herself and for plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6, her daughters, who were minor at the relevant time. Apart from plaintiffs, mother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 is also one of the co-owner.

3. As stated above, the sale-deed dated 20.04.1989 came to be challenged in the aforesaid civil suit on several grounds including on the ground that the sale-deed was bad in law with respect to share of minor daughters inasmuch as permission under Section 8 of the Act of 1956 was not obtained prior to the execution of the sale-deed. Learned Trial Court has decided the suit vide judgment and decree dated 07.02.2019. Learned Trial Court has held that the sale-deed was not false or forged document as alleged by the plaintiffs. However, learned Trial Court has held the sale-deed is bad in law since permission under Section 8 of the Act of 1956 was not obtained prior to execution of the sale-deed.

4. As regard the point of limitation, learned Trial court has relied upon evidence of Meerabai who was examined as PW-1 on behalf of the plaintiffs, wherein she has stated that she came to know about the sale-deed for the first time in the month of June 2010. This statement is accepted by learned Trial Court and it is held that the suit is filed within limitation. It will be pertinent to state that the other plaintiffs i.e. the daughters who were minor as on the date of execution of sale-deed, have not entered the witness box. On such findings, learned Trial Court has partly decreed the suit holding that the sale-deed dated 20.04.1989 was bad in law and has accordingly passed a decree for cancellation of sale-deed along with decree for possession with respect to the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court, the defendant/purchaser preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 134/2019. Learned First Appellate Court has allowed said ap