Bombay High Court
Pandurang S/O Ganpat Datir vs Ukandrao S/O Marotirao Gujar And ... on 15 May, 2026
1 SA 398.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO.398 OF 2019
Pandurang G. Datir Vs. Ukandrao M. Gujar and anr.
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO.400 OF 2019
Pandurang G. Datir Vs. Ukandrao M. Gujar and anr.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Mr. A. V. Muley, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Shail Mate h/f. Mr. A. V. Chirde, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 15.05.2026.
. The present Second Appeals were taken up for final hearing. After the hearing was concluded, the appeals were closed for judgment. However, it is found that an additional substantial question of law arises for consideration which are required to be framed in the appeals. There is no foundation in the cases set up by the parties as regards this substantial question of law. However, the question arises from the case set up by the respondents in their plaint in the suit for possession filed by them and in their written statement in the suit for injunction filed by the appellant.
2. The appellant in the present second appeals is defendant in a suit for possession filed by the 2 SA 398.19.odt respondents against him and plaintiff in suit for perpetual injunction by him against the defendants. The appellant claims ownership over the suit property which is an agricultural land, on the basis of Will dated 26.06.1996 executed by late Sitaram Tukaram Gujar in his favour. Sitaram and his wife Sagunabai died issueless. Sitaram did not leave behind any Class-I legal heir. It is not in dispute that the respondents are nephews of late Sitaram and, as such, his Class-II legal heirs. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is related to late Sitaram through his wife late Sagunabai, who is sister of appellant's father.
3. The defence of the defendants with respect to Will is that the plaintiff, under the guise of executing a tenancy agreement, got the Will executed from Sitaram by misleading him. The land in question is an agricultural land. In the absence of Will, the suit property will be inherited by the respondents.
4. The land was allotted to Sitaram by the Government and is held by him in Class-II rights. This implies that the land cannot be transferred without permission from the competent authority.
5. In view of the aforesaid, initially, vide order dated 21.01.2020, a substantial question of law was 3 SA 398.19.odt raised as to whether execution of Will by a Class -II occupant will amount to transfer of property. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.07.2025, additional substantial question of law was framed as to whether the Will in favour of appellant can be said to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances since the testator Sitaram died after a period of 12 years from the date of execution of Will.
6. It is the case of the respondents that the plaintiff got the Will executed from the testator by misleading him. It is their case that, in essence, the transaction between the testator and the appellant was one of tenancy whereby lease with respect to the suit property, which is an agricultural land, was sought to be created in favour of the appellant.
7. In view of the contention raised by the respondents, Section 50 of the Maharashtra Tenancy of Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region), 1958 and Section 36 of the said Act arise for consideration. Following additional substantial question of law is framed.
"Having regard to Section 50 read with Section 36 of the Maharashtra Tenancy of Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, whether the respondents are entitled 4 SA 398.19.odt to a decree for possession with respect to suit property, which is an agricultural land, in view of their case that testator Sitaram had transferred the land to the appellant as tenant ?
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Tαɳɱαყ...