Bombay High Court
Siddharth Ganpatrao Kamble vs Shakuntala Khushalrao Lohawe And 2 ... on 26 August, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8421
1 SA473.12 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2012
APPELLANT : Siddharth Ganpatrao Kamble,
Aged 40 years, Occu. Cultivator,
R/o Sakhara, Dist. Wardha.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] Shakuntala Khushalrao Lohawe,
Aged 42 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Gaurakshan Ward No. 32,
Rashtra Bhasha Road, Wardha,
Tah. & Dist. Wardha.
2] Anusayabai Shatrughna Gotekar,
Aged 55 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Shanti Nagar, Tah. & Dist. Rajnandgaon
(Chattisgarh), (Dead, thru. LRs.)
i) Praful Shatrughna Gotekar,
R/o Panchshil Colony, Mamta Nagar,
(Ward No. 19), Gali no.5, Tah. & Dist.
Rajnandgaon (Chattisgarh) - 491 441
ii) Pravin Shatrughna Gotekar,
R/o Panchshil Colony, Mamta Nagar,
(Ward No. 19), Gali no.5, Tah. & Dist.
Rajnandgaon (Chattisgarh) - 491 441
iii) Vinu alias Vinita Shatrughna Gotekar,
C/o Mrs. Vinita W/o Virendra Ramteke,
R/o F3/179, Lane-17, Phase-1,
Surya Vihar Colony, (Behind Surya Mall)
Bhilai, Dist. Durg. (Chhattisgarh) 490 001.
iv) Samiksha alias Chhami Shatrughna Gotekar,
C/o Samiksha Sachin Bhalekar,
R/o Dev Bhavan Hanuman Mandir Road,
Ram nagar Supela, Bhilai, Dist. Durg,
(Chattisgarh) 490 001.
2 SA473.12 (J).odt
v] Charushila Shatrughna Gotekar,
C/o Mrs. Charushila Sudhir Gajbhiye,
R/o Bajrangpur Navagaon Ward No.2,
Shyam Residency Colony, Rajnandgaon,
Tah. & Dist. Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)
491 441
3] Panchfula Kishor Sawai,
Aged 52 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Taroda, Tah. Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Saurabh A. Chaudhari, Advocate for the appellant
Mrs. V. P. Thakre, Advocate for the respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
Date of Reserving Judgment : JULY 17, 2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : AUGUST 26, 2025
JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated
14.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Wardha in
Regular Civil Appeal No. 67/2009, thereby confirming the judgment
and decree dated 29.01.2009 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge,
Junior Division, Wardha in Regular Civil Suit No. 15/2007, the
present second appeal has been filed.
2. The appeal is admitted by order dated 25.10.2012 on the
following substantial question of law :-
3 SA473.12 (J).odt
"Whether the courts below ere justified in granting
declaration that the relinquishment deed dated
28.02.1992 was not at all in existence, particularly
when the declaration claimed is that this
relinquishment deed executed by the respondents/
plaintiff be declared as illegal and not binding upon
them ?"
3. Brief resume of the facts is as under :
Respondent nos.1 and 3 and deceased respondent no.2
(hereinafter referred to as "the respondents" for short) being sisters,
had filed a suit against the appellant who is their brother, for
declaration, partition and separate possession, inter alia, claiming that
their father Ganpatrao died in the year 1969 and their mother
Bhagerata died in the year 1978 leaving behind them the suit
property. After their death, the respondents along with the appellant
inherited the said property. The respondents demanded a share in
the suit property but the appellant avoided to effect partition.
Therefore, they obtained the 7/12 extracts of the suit property and
were shocked to know that their names were deleted from the
revenue record on the basis of a so called 'relinquishment deed', dated
20.02.1992. It is their specific case that they never relinquished their
share in the suit property in favour of their brother i.e. the appellant.
Therefore, they filed the civil suit seeking a declaration that the so
4 SA473.12 (J).odt
called 'relinquishment deed' dated 20.02.1992' is a fraudulent
document and does not transfer any right, title or interest in favour of
the appellant and also sought partition in the suit property.
4. The appellant has come up with a specific case that the
respondents executed a relinquishment deed in respect of the suit
property and therefore, they are not entitled for partition.
5. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for partition but
refused to grant the relief of declaration in respect of the
relinquishment deed since the relinquishment deed has not been filed
on record either by the respondents or by the appellant.
6. An unsuccessful attempt was made by the appellant by
filing an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge against the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, alleging that the
respondents had relinquished their share by executing relinquishment
deed dated 20.02.1992. Feeling aggrieved with the dismissal of the
appeal, this Second Appeal came to be filed.
7. I have heard Mr. S. A. Chaudhari, learned counsel
5 SA473.12 (J).odt
appearing for the appellant and Mrs. V. P. Thakre, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. With their able assistance, I have gone
through the impugned judgments of the trial Court as well as the first
Appellate Court and the record and proceedings.
8. It is the contention of Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel for
the appellant that the respondents themselves came up with a case for
declaration that the relinquishment deed dated 20.02.1992 is not
binding on them. The learned trial Court refused to grant the said
declaration and therefore, the stand taken by the appellant in his
defence that the relinquishment deed was executed by the
respondents relinquishing their share is fortified. However, the
learned trial Court as well as the learned first Appellate Court did not
appreciate this aspect and erroneously granted the decree for
partition determining the share of the respondents. It is also
submitted that the relinquishment deed dated 20.02.1992 is
challenged in the year 2007. Therefore, the suit filed by the
respondents is also barred by the law of limitation.
9. Conversely, Mrs. Thakre, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents submitted that the revenue authority deleted the
6 SA473.12 (J).odt
names of the respondents from the 7/12 extract of the suit property
on the basis of the relinquishment deed dated 20.02.1992. According
to the respondents, there was no relinquishment deed executed by
any of the respondents. Therefore, there is no question of them filing
the relinquishment deed on record. According to the learned counsel,
if the appellant is relying on the so called 'relinquishment deed', then
he should have produced the same on record. She supported the
judgments of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
10. Having heard the respective counsels for the parties and
having gone through the impugned judgments and the record and
proceedings, it transpires that the appellant along with the
respondents inherited the suit property by virtue of Section 8 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The plaint depicts that the respondents
came to know about deletion of their names from the revenue record
on the basis of the relinquishment deed allegedly executed by them
when they obtained the certified copy of the 7/12 extracts of the suit
property on 29.05.2006. Therefore, they filed a suit denying the
execution of the relinquishment deed and for declaring the
relinquishment deed, if any, as null and void. The written statement
filed by the appellant reveals that the appellant came up with a
7 SA473.12 (J).odt
specific defence of execution of relinquishment deed by the
respondents on 20.02.1992 and therefore, they are not entitled for
any partition.
11. The suit had been filed by the respondents for declaration
that the so called 'relinquishment deed' is not binding on them. On
the basis of the said relinquishment deed, the names of the
respondents were deleted from 7/12 extracts of the suit property by
the revenue authority and the appellant also came up with a specific
case of execution of relinquishment deed. Undisputedly, none of the
parties have placed a copy of the relinquishment deed on record. The
reason the trial Court did not grant the relief of declaration is non-
filing of the said relinquishment deed on record. The trial Court
proceeded to hold that there is no relinquishment deed in existence.
Just because the trial Court did not grant the relief of declaration in
favour of the respondents, does not mean that they executed the
relinquishment deed relinquishing their share in favour of the
appellant. It is also the defence of the appellant that such
relinquishment deed was executed by the respondents. Therefore, it
was the duty of the appellant to file a copy of the said relinquishment
deed on record for scrutiny of the Court to verify his defence. It is the
8 SA473.12 (J).odt
case here that, the trial Court rejected the prayer of the respondent
for declaration with regard to the relinquishment deed, but at the
same time has also dealt with the defence of the appellant, who
claimed execution of the relinquishment deed by the respondents but
did not file a copy of the same on record. Therefore, the finding of
the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court that the
relinquishment deed dated 20.02.1992 was not at all in existence,
cannot be faulted with only for the reason that the trial Court refused
to grant the relief of declaration that the so called 'relinquishment
deed' executed by the respondents is illegal and not binding them.
Therefore, no interference is required in this finding of the trial Court.
12. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, a specific
averment has been made in the plaint that the respondents obtained
the certified copies of the 7/12 extract of the suit property on
29.05.2006 and that is when they came to know about deletion of
their names from the 7/12 extract of the suit property on the basis of
the so called 'relinquishment deed'. The suit filed by the respondents
for declaration and partition will be covered by Articles 56 and 110 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 which provide for the period of limitation as
three years and twelve years, respectively. The time which begins to
9 SA473.12 (J).odt
run under Article 56 is from the date of knowledge. The respondents
came to know about the so called 'relinquishment deed' on
29.05.2006 whereas, the suit has been filed in the year 2007 i.e.
within three years. Be that as it may, the prayer for declaration has
not been granted by the trial Court and therefore, the question of
limitation for declaration does not arise at all. So far as the claim for
partition is concerned, it is covered under Article 110 of the Act of
1963 and the time period for the same is twelve years which begins to
run from the date of knowledge of exclusion from the joint family
property. According to the respondents, they got knowledge on
29.05.2006 and the suit has been filed in the year 2007. Nothing has
been brought on record by the appellant to show that the respondents
had knowledge about the relinquishment deed prior to 2006.
Therefore, the suit cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
13. There is no merit in the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M.W.Chandwani, J.)
Diwale
Signed by: DIWALE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/08/2025 20:10:15
