Bombay High Court
Natthu Nagoji Watkar (Deceased) Suresh ... vs Arunatai Sudhakar Watkar on 18 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12587
SA.166.2025 Judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO.166 OF 2025
APPELLANTS :- Natthu Nagoji Watkar (deceased)
(Original Plaintiffs on R.A.)
1) Suresh Natthu Watkar,
Aged about 58 Years, Occ: Agriculturist,
2) Shankar Natthu Watkar, Aged about 56
Years, Occ: Agriculturist,
3) Dnyaneshwar Natthu Watkar,
Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Agriculturist,
All R/o. Khairgaon, Tah. Narkhed, Dist.
Nagpur.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT :- Arunatai Sudhakar Watkar,
(Original Defendant on R.A.)
Aged about 44 Years, Occ: Labour,
R/o Khairgaon, Tah. Narkhed, Dist.
Nagpur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nishant J. Patel, Advocate for Appellant.
None for Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 18/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. The present second appeal arises out of judgment and
decree dated 28.07.2023, passed by the learned 3rd Jt. Civil Judge
SA.166.2025 Judgment.odt
Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No.232 of 2018,
whereby the suit for cancellation of the registered gift deed dated
28.09.2017 filed by the original plaintiff/Natthu Nagoji Watkar in
favour of defendant, who his widowed daughter in law came to be
dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2025, passed
by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-5, Nagpur, dismissing the
Regular Civil Appeal No.261 of 2023 arising out of the said suit.
3. One Natthu Watkar filed the aforesaid suit against his
daughter in law, who is widow of his predeceased son Sudhakar,
seeking cancellation of the registered gift deed dated 28.09.2017
executed by him in her favour. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
gift pertains to ancestral property and therefore, he did not have any
authority to transfer it by way of gift and that the said gift was
obtained from him by the defendant by practicing fraud and taking
unfair advantage of his illiteracy. After filing of the affidavit, in lieu
of examination-in-chief, the original plaintiff before his cross-
examination died and the present appellants who are sons of
original plaintiffs were brought on record as his legal
representatives.
SA.166.2025 Judgment.odt
4. The defendant opposed the suit by filing written
statement, contending that the gift was executed and registered
voluntarily and that it was only pertaining to the share of her
husband only. She further stated that the gift was executed in her
favour by her father in law (plaintiff) for her maintenance.
5. Based on the rival pleadings, issues were framed on which
parties led their respective evidence.
6. The plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW-1 on behalf of
the plaintiffs. During the course of his cross-examination, he
admitted that partition of the properties had taken place during the
lifetime of his father i.e. original plaintiff. He further admitted that
the gift deed under challenge was pertaining to share of defendant's
husband in the properties which would have fallen to his share.
Mutation entries recorded pursuant to the partition were also
admitted by this witness. Most importantly, the witness also
admitted that, just as the impugned gift deed dated 28.09.2017 was
executed in favour of the defendant, widow of predeceased son of
the original plaintiff, three separate gift deeds were also executed by
the plaintiff on 20.12.2017 in favour of his other three sons.
SA.166.2025 Judgment.odt
7. Based on these admissions, the learned trial Court held
that the fact of partition during the lifetime of Natthu, the original
plaintiff, was duly proved and further that it was also proved that he
had executed four gift deeds d
8. uring his lifetime, three in favour of his sons and one in favour
of the widow of his predeceased son (defendant). The learned trial
Court therefore held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the case
of fraud and also failed to assail the gift on the ground that the same
was pertaining to ancestral property. In view of these findings,
coupled with the positive findings that the gift was properly proved
by examining an attesting witness, whose evidence was not
shattered in cross-examination and proof of acceptance of the gift,
the learned trial Court dismissed the suit.
9. The learned First Appellate Court confirmed the decree
passed by the learned trial Court by referring to the admission with
respect to partition to hold that the plaintiff had the authority and
title to execute the gift deed in question. The learned trial Court
also referred to cross-examination of PW-1 wherein it was
specifically admitted that Natthu had executed the gift in favour of
defendant for her maintenance. The learned First Appellate Court
SA.166.2025 Judgment.odt
has also referred to the mutation of the property in favour of the
defendant pursuant to the gift deed in question and her possession
over the suit property to hold that acceptance of the gift was duly
proved. The learned First Appellate Court has also held that
attestation of the gift was also proved by examining DW-2.
10. This findings recorded by both the learned Courts are
pure findings of fact based on appreciation of the entire material on
record. The learned Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs
contended that case of fraud was duly established. However, on
perusal of the findings and deposition recorded, copies whereof
were provided for perusal, this Court is of the opinion that the
findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts are perfectly just and
proper and do not warrant any interference. The fact that similar
document of gift are executed in favour of other three sons gives
credence to the impugned gift which is executed in favour of
widowed daughter in law. The document is duly registered and
properly attested as per requirement of law. The plaintiffs have
miserably failed to prove the case of fraud. Rather material
admissions in cross-examination of PW-1 are sufficient to hold that
the gift is a genuine in and legal document.
SA.166.2025 Judgment.odt
11. In view of the findings recorded above, in the considered
opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises for
consideration in the present second appeal. The second appeal is
therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
C.L. Dhakate
