IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed HUSENBASHA b H Ry AU HS AE MNB AA NSHA SECOND APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2016 R NA AH DA AM FAN NADAF WITH Date:

2025.07.18

19:57:33 +0530 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1598 OF 2016 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 738 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 838 OF 2025 Vijay Shridhar Ghare Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculturist R/at Bebadhole, Taluka Maval, District Pune ….Appellant/Applicant (Org. Defendant No.1)

Versus

1. Ashok Narayan Shinde Age: 60 years, Occ: Retrd.

R/at 6 Army Wellfare Coop.

Society, Salunkevihar, Kondhawa, Pune 22

2. Vijaya Narayan Shinde Age: 59 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/at Omkar, Plot no. 8 Madhu Sanchaya Society, Ganeshnagar, Pune 52

3. Sunanda Shankararao Khopade Age: 64 years, Occ: Housewife, R/at Pravatnshil Society, Flat No. 8 near Sangamnagar, Bibvewadi, Pune 37

4. Aruna Ramesh Shinde (Abated)

Age: 58 years, Occ: Household, 5. Rajesh Ramesh Shinde Age: 35 years, Occ: Service, 6. Vinit Ramesh Shinde Age: 32 years, Occ: Service, 4 to 6 residing at Flat No. 50, Bildg. No P-4, Oxford Village, Wanawori, Pune 40 ...Respondents/

(Org. Plaintiffs)

7. Suresh Narayan Shinde Age: 71 years Occ: Retired, R/at Manik Baug Society, Sinhagadh Road, Pune 52 ….Respondent/

(Org. Defendant No.2)

***

Mr. Niranjan A. Mogre a/w. Mr. Sujay H. Gangal & Mr. Swaraj M.

Savant, Advocates for the Appellant/Applicant.

Mr. Shriniwas S. Patwardhan, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

***

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.

DATE : 18^th JULY, 2025 JUDGMENT :

1. This Second Appeal is filed challenging Judgment and Decree dated 01.04.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.718 of 2011 by District Judge-16, Pune, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2011 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Regular Civil Suit No.145 of 2005. The Appellant is original Defendant No.1 and Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are original Plaintiffs.

Respondent No.7 is original Defendant No.2.

CASE

2. Few facts necessary for disposal of the Second Appeal are that Plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and Defendant No.2 are real brothers. Plaintiff No.3 is their real sister and Plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 are legal heirs of their deceased brother Ramesh. These are sons and daughters of deceased Narayan. The suit property stood in the name of Narayan who expired on 04.01.1965. After the death of Narayan Defendant No.2 Suresh became Karta/Manager of the family.

3. On 28.01.2002, the Plaintiffs received a notice from the concerned Talathi about proposed mutation entry in the revenue record of the suit properties. The Plaintiffs, thereafter found out that Defendant No.2-Karta Suresh has sold the suit properties to Defendant No.1 (present Appellant) under registered sale deed dated 08.02.2001. The Plaintiffs, thereafter, started revenue proceedings and ultimately filed the present suit on 28.01.2005. Defendant No. 2-Karta Suresh remained absent despite due service. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and on appreciation of evidence, found that Defendant No.2-Karta Suresh had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 1 (present Appellant) and the said sale deed is not binding on the Plaintiffs. The Trial Court found that Plaintiffs are entitled to necessary declaration. The Trial Court further found that the suit properties were not sold for legal necessity/benefit of the family by Defendant No.2 in the capacity of Karta. Under Issue No.7, the suit has been held as filed within limitation. Trial Court declared that Defendant No.2 had no right to sell the suit properties in favour of Defendant No.1 and held that the sale deed dated 08.02.2001 is not binding on the Plaintiffs.

4. The present Appellant filed the said appeal and challenged the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court, by impugned Judgment and Decree has confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court. The Appeal Court on re-appreciation of the evidence and after hearing the parties found that the suit is not barred by limitation and the sale deed in favour of t