Bombay High Court
Rukminibai Ganpati Kalekar ... vs Shobha Ishwar Kalekar on 22 February, 2021
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
8 sa 223-18 & 259-19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sneha CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
N.
Chavan SECOND APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2018
WITH
Digitally signed
by Sneha N. SECOND APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2019
Chavan
Date: 2021.02.22
17:29:50 +0530
Rukminibai Ganpati Kalekar
(deceased) through Umesh
Ganpati Kalekar & Ors. .. Appellants
V/s.
Shobha Ishwar Kalekar & Ors. ..Respondents
----
Mr. Prashant Suryawanshi i/b G.M. Savagave for the Appellant.
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 22nd FEBRUARY, 2021
P.C.
1. In both these second appeals, the appellants are the legal
representatives of late Rukhminibai Kalekar. Rukhminibai had filed
Regular Civil Suit No. 575 of 1995 for possession and injunction of
the suit property. The case made out was that the suit property has
been purchased by her, from her husband, Ganpati Kalekar under
registered sale deed dated 25.05.1956 (wrongly recorded in the
Trial Court's Judgment as 25.05.1996). The respondents filed
Regular Civil Suit No. 1019 of 2000 challenging the said sale deed
Sneha Chavan page 1 of 3
8 sa 223-18 & 259-19
inter alia on the ground that suit property was an ancestral property
of Ganpati Kalekar and the sale deed was bogus.
2. In both the suits there was an issue of limitation framed. The
learned Trial Court partly decreed Regular Civil Suit No. 1019 of
2000 filed by the respondents and declared the sale deed as void ab
initio. Regular Civil Suit No. 575 of 1995 filed by Rukhminibai came
to be dismissed. The appellants challenged the same before the first
Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 278 of 2005 and
Regular Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2006 in which there was a cross-
objection filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The first Appellate
Court dismissed both the appeals and allowed the counter claim.
This has given rise to the present Second Appeals.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that courts
below were in error in holding that Suit No. 1019 of 2000 was
within limitation inasmuch as the challenge was raised in the said
suit to a sale deed of the year 1956.
4. I have gone through the reasoning articulated by the Trial
Court against the relevant issue in the two suits.
Sneha Chavan page 2 of 3
8 sa 223-18 & 259-19
5. For the present, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on
05.04.2021.
6. Notice by R.P.A.D./Speed Post/ Courier / private service is
allowed, in addition to the regular mode.
7. The appellants to file affidavit-of-service by next date.
C.V. BHADANG, J.
Sneha Chavan page 3 of 3
