SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 212

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
SHIVAJI GOPAL KURHADE – Appellant
Versus
RAMCHANDRA GOPAL KURHADE AND OTHERS – Respondent
IA/6796/2024



##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-AS:4170

Sumedh 18-asao-229-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 229 OF 2024

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6796 OF 2024

Shivaji Gopal Kurhade ]

Age: 72, Occ- Agriculturalist ]

Residing at H.No.1951, Kurhade Ali ]

Aalndi Devachi Tal-Khed Dist- Pune ]…Appellant

(Original Plaintiff)

V/s.

1. Ramchandra Gopal Kurhade ]

Age: 72, Occ- Agriculturalist ]

2. Vilas Gopal Kurhade ]

Age: 62, Occ- Agriculturalist ]

3. Yogendra Gopal Kurhade ]

Age: 56, Occ- Agriculturalist ]

4. Shankarrao Gopal Kurhade ]

Age: 52, Occ- Agriculturalist ]

5. Vimal Gopal Kurhade ]

Age: 85, Occ- Agriculturalist ]

6. Sachin Ramchandra Kurhade ]

Age: 38, Occ- Agriculturalist ]

7. Amol Ramchandra Kurhade ]

Age: 35, Occ- Agriculturalist ]

8. Vishal Vilas Kurhade ]

Age: 33, Occ- Agriculturalist ]

9. Viraj Vilas Kurhade ]

Age: 31, Occ- Agriculturalist ]

Digitally

signed by

SUMEDH

SUMEDH NAMDEO

NAMDEO SONAWANE

SONAWANE Date:

2026.01.28

18:15:43

+0530

::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2026 07:51:00 :::

##PAGE2##

Sumedh 18-asao-229-2024.doc

10. Gopal Yogendra Kurhade ]

Age: 24, Occ- Agriculturalist ]

11. Chaitanya Shankarrao Kurhade ]

Age: 22, Occ- Agriculturalist ]

All R/at- House No. 808/2, ]

Laxminarayan Building, Behind ]

Santoshimata Temple Aalndi ]

Devachi Tal-Khed Dist- Pune ]…Respondents

(Original Defendants)

______________________________________

Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud i/by Adv. Samay Pawar for Appellant.

Mr. J.D. Khairnar a/w. Adv. Vikas Shivarkar for Respondent No. 1,

6 and 7.

Mr. Laxmikant N. Shrimangale a/w. Adv. Ambadas N.

Shrimangale, Adv. Vithal Shrimangale for Respondent No. 2, 3, 8 to

10.

_____________________________________________

CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.

RESERVED ON : 6TH JANUARY 2026.

PRONOUNCED ON : 28TH JANUARY 2026.

JUDGMENT:

1) By the present Appeal, the Appellant/Orig. Plaintiff

challenges the order dated 1st February 2024 ("impugned order"),

passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Khed- Rajgurunagar,

District-Pune ("the Appellate Court") in Regular Civil Appeal No.

19 of 2020 arising out of Special Civil Suit No. 211 of 2014 ("Suit").

By the impugned order, the Appellate Court set aside the partial

Decree for partition dated 2nd January 2020 passed by the Joint

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khed- Rajgurunagar, Dist.-Pune ("the

Trial Court"), partly in favour of the Plaintiff and remanded the

::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2026 07:51:00 :::

##PAGE3##

Sumedh 18-asao-229-2024.doc

Suit to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication on re-framed issues.

2) The short but significant question that arises for

consideration in the present Appeal is whether the Ld. Appellate

Court was justified in remanding the Suit for fresh adjudication on

re-framed issues, including an additional issue of limitation,

without considering the evidence already led by the parties on

record.

BRIEF FACTS

3) The Appellant had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 211 of

2014 (originally Special Civil Suit No. 248 of 2012) seeking

partition and separate possession of ancestral and joint family

properties described in Schedules A to E, recovery of the Appellant

share in rental income from 2009 to 2012, and a decree of

permanent injunction. The Appellant claims a 1/6th share in the

joint family properties as the son of late Gopal Kurhade through

his first wife, whereas Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the sons of the

said deceased through Respondent No. 5, his second wife. The Suit

came to be filed upon the Appellant acquiring knowledge that

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were attempting to alienate the suit

properties to his exclusion.

4) The Respondents contested the Suit, inter alia, on the ground

of limitation, alleging an oral partition in 1980 during the lifetime

of the deceased, and further contended that the properties

::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2026 07:51:00 :::

##PAGE4##

Sumedh 18-asao-229-2024.doc

described in Schedules D and E were their self-acquired properties.

5) The Trial Court, by judgement and decree dated 2nd January

2020, pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top