Bombay High Court
Natthu Damaji Bondhare vs Smt. Parvatabai Baburao Mandaokar And ... on 18 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12664
11. SA 112 of 2023.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO.112/2023
APPELLANT : Natthu Damaji Bondhare,
(On R.A.) aged about 82 years, Occu. : Cultivation,
R/o Vichoda (Bu.), Post Padoli,
Tahsil and District Chandrapur.
(Original Plaintiff/Appellant on R.A.)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Smt. Parvatabai Baburao Mandaokar,
(On R.A.) Aged about 81 years, Occu. : Nil.
2. Purushottam Baburao Mandaokar,
aged about 58 years, Occu. : Service.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are R/o
Near Shrikrishna Talkies, Bazar Ward,
Chandrapur.
3. Sau. Kiran Nagaji Hanwate,
aged about 54 years, Occu. : Nil,
R/o Babupeth Ward, Chandrapur,
Tahsil and District Chandrapur.
(Correct Address)
3. Sau. Kiran Nagaji Hanwate,
Age - 54 years, Occ - Nil.
R/o Netaji Nagar, Bapupeth Ward,
Chandrapur.
(Amendment carried out as per
Hon'ble Court on today i.e.
17/06/2025)
4. Pravin Padvekar, aged about 46 years,
occu. : Business, R/o Ekori Ward,
Chandrapur, Tahsil and District Chandrapur.
11. SA 112 of 2023.odt
2
5. Mohan Sadashio Dongre,
aged about 46 years, occu. : Business,
R/o Jatpura Ward, Chandrapur,
Tahsil and District Chandrapur.
6. Yashpal Devanand Khobragade,
aged about 39 years, occu. : Cultivation.
7. Sagar Devanand Khobragade,
aged about 36 years, occu. : Cultivation,
Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are R/o Jatpura
Ward, Chandrapur, Tahsil and District
Chandrapur.
8. Shamrao Srawanji Nikhare,
aged about Major, Occ. : Cultivation
(Dead through L.Rs.)
L.Rs. of Respondent No.8
8(a) Akshay S/o Shamrao Nikhare
Aged about 25 yrs., Occ. Not known,
R/o Plot No.19, Malbar Colony,
Seven Hills, Nagpur.
(Amendment carried out as per
Court's order dt. 3.7.2025)
9. Mina Shamrao Nikhare,
aged about Major, Occ. : Household,
Respondent Nos.8 and 9 are R/o
Ghotepar Ward, Pawani, Tahsil
Pawani, District Bhandara.
10. Udit Ratilal Vora,
aged about Major, Occ. : Business,
R/o Shastrinagar, Chandrapur, Tahsil
and District Chandrapur.
11. SA 112 of 2023.odt
3
11. Bharat Diwakar Ghosh,
aged about Major, Occ. : Business,
R/o Bengaly Camp, Chandrapur.
(Original Defendants/Respondents
on R.A.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for appellant
Mr. Apurv De, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 4 to 7, 10 and 11
Mr. P.V. Dandwate with Mr. G.G. Nimbalkar, Advocates for L.Rs. of 8 (a) & 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 18/11/2025
ORAL ORDER :
1. Notice in the second appeal was issued on 12/09/2023 on
the following substantial questions of law :-
"(i) Whether the learned Courts below recorded a right
finding in respect of sale deed as valid, specifically when the sale
deed was registered on 10/08/1978 ?
(ii) Whether the decision of Courts below has based on
sale deed dated 08/08/1978 and on that basis assuming such sale
deed, suit is dismissed and also the appeal, whether such a
decision rendered by courts below is sustainable in law ?
(iii) Whether ground of limitation, as the Court's below
if rightly answered in the negative ?"
2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The respondents are
original defendants. Parties will be hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff
and defendants". The present plaintiff had filed a suit being Regular
11. SA 112 of 2023.odt
Civil Suit No.128/2004, challenging sale-deed dated 08/08/1978
executed by him in favour of the defendant No.1 and her husband. The
said sale-deed dated 08/08/1978 is registered on 10/10/1978. The suit
property is an agricultural land bearing Survey No.117/2 admesuring
8.50 acres.
3. It is the case of plaintiff that he had purchased land bearing
Survey No.117 admeasuring 18.50 acres under separate sale-deeds
dated 15/05/1968 and 10/07/1970. The old Survey Numbers of the
suit property are stated to be 126/2 and 128. The suit was initially filed
seeking declaration that the defendants did not have any right to disturb
possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and that the alleged
sale-deed was not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought
decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from
disturbing his possession over the same. The plaintiff has amended the
plaint to contend that after the order of temporary injunction was
passed against him vide order dated 31/08/2004, the defendants had
taken forcible possession of the suit property in the year 2005. However,
the plaintiff has not incorporated prayer for possession in the plaint.
4. As against this, the case of defendants is that the defendant
No.1 and her husband late Baburao had purchased the suit property
from the plaintiff vide sale-deed dated 08/08/1978, which was
registered on 10/08/1978. They contended that the sale-deed was
11. SA 112 of 2023.odt
preceded by an agreement of sale dated 28/09/1977. It is contended
that the plaintiff has received entire sale consideration as per the sale-
deed. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 are son and daughter respectively of
defendant No.1. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 sold the suit property to the
defendant Nos.4 and 5, who in turn, have sold the same to the
defendant Nos.6 and 7. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 claimed ownership
over the suit property on the basis of aforesaid sale-deed and further
referred to several circumstances to demonstrate that plaintiff was all
the while aware about the sale-deed dated 08/08/1978 and had also
accepted the same. Reference was made to sub division of Survey
No.117 as 117/1 with respect to share of plaintiff and 117/2 with
respect to suit property purchased by defendant No.1 and her husband,
measurement of land in the year 1986, separate mutation entries,
service of notice, in view of acquisition of land on 04/06/1985 and
measurement of land in the year 1986.
5. The defendants raised issue of limitation and contended
that the suit was liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
6. The learned trial Court framed issues in the matter and
recorded evidence of rival parties. Parties were heard after the evidence
was so recorded. The learned trial Court has found that the evidence of
plaintiff was completely unreliable and that the sale transaction was
duly proved. It is also held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the
11. SA 112 of 2023.odt
suit property. Even on the point of limitation, the learned trial Court has
held that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. The learned trial
Court has recorded that the plaintiff had stated in his cross-examination
that since beginning the suit was filed for recovery of possession. This,
according to learned trial Court, was sufficient to establish that the
plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property on the date of filing
of suit. The learned trial Court also found that the plaintiff admitted his
signature on the agreement of sale dated 28/09/1977 during his cross-
examination. It was further found that the plaintiff admitted execution
of sale-deed with respect to 2 acres land out of old Survey No.126/2
and 6 acres land out of old Survey No.128 in favour of defendant No.1
and her husband (these two Survey Numbers were thereafter
renumbered as Survey No.117). The learned trial Court has referred to
statement of plaintiff with respect to alleged objection to mutation of
the names of defendant No.1 and her husband in the year 1986. It is
found that such objection was not raised. However, on the basis of the
statement, the learned trial Court has observed that the plaintiff was
aware about the sale transaction at least from the year 1986 and yet the
suit was filed in the year 2004. It will be pertinent to state that the
plaintiff also tried to dispute his signature on the sale-deed. However,
the learned trial Court has found that the signatures on the agreement
of sale at Exh.72 and sale-deed at Exh.105 had resemblance with each
11. SA 112 of 2023.odt
other. It is further recorded that since the fact of execution of sale-deed
was subsequently admitted, the question of disputing the signatures did
not arise. In the context of disputing signatures, the plaintiff has stated
that he had taken loan from husband of defendant No.1, who had
forced him to execute the sale-deed dated 08/08/1978. The plaintiff has
further stated that he was forcibly taken to the office of Sub Registrar on
08/08/1978, however, the Registrar refused to register the sale-deed
since the suit property was held in occupancy Class-II rights. It is thus
clear that the plaintiff cannot dispute his signatures over the sale-deed.
As regards the contention of plaintiff that the sale-deed was bad in law
since the suit property was held as occupant Class-II, the learned trial
Court did not entertain the contention for want of pleadings. In light of
such findings, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the
plaintiff on merits and also on the point of limitation.
7. Aggrieved by dismissal of suit, the plaintiff preferred first
appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.107/2008, which came to be
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 05/03/2020. The learned
first Appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence on record and has
concurred with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. A
perusal of findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court will
demonstrate that the evidence is properly appreciated and dealt with.
11. SA 112 of 2023.odt
8. As regards the contention with respect to suit property
being held in occupancy Class-II, the learned first Appellate Court found
that the contention was raised without pleadings and further recorded
that the plaintiff himself had purchased the land while it was held in
occupancy Class-II and therefore, the sale-deed in favour of the
defendant No.1 and her husband could not be questioned by him on the
said ground, particularly when the land was not received by the plaintiff
under any grant from the Government and was also not held by him as
a Government lessor.
9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid concurrent decrees, the
present second appeal is filed. As stated above, three substantial
questions of law have been framed in the present appeal.
10. Substantial Question of Law No.1:- The sale-deed is
executed on 08/08/1978. It is registered on 10/08/1978. Section 23 of
the Registration Act, 1908 provides for outer limit of four months for
registration of documents from the date of their execution. In view of
the above, sale-deed dated 08/08/1978 cannot be said to be bad in law
only because it is registered on 10/08/1978.
11. Substantial Question of Law No.2 :- Execution of sale-deed
cannot be doubted, it is rather admitted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff
tried to make out a case that the sale-deed was executed under pressure
from husband of defendant No.1, since he had borrowed money from
11. SA 112 of 2023.odt
him. The plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the said contention, as is
apparent from the findings recorded by both the learned Courts on
meticulous examination of the evidence on record. There are several
admissions, which are referred by both the learned Courts, which are
sufficient to discard the contention of the plaintiff with respect to
execution of sale-deed. The plaintiff was also not consistent with his
stand in this regard. Having come up with a contention that he had not
executed sale-deed, he also tried to contend that sale-deed was got
executed under pressure. The learned Courts have rightly discarded the
evidence of the plaintiff. Mr. Kshirsagar, learned Advocate has further
placed placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of K. Laxmanan Vs. Thekkayil Padmini and others , reported
in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 510 to contend that the burden of proving fraud
was wrongly cast on the plaintiff.
This judgment deals with proof of Wills. It is held that
when suspicious circumstances surround a Will, the burden of clearing
the same lies on the profounder. With respect to the ratio of said
judgment, it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the
present case there are clear admissions on the part of the plaintiff to
suggest genuineness of the sale-deed and that it was all throughout
acted upon. Likewise, it is well settled that there is a presumption of
genuineness with respect to registered sale-deed. It must also be stated
11. SA 112 of 2023.odt
that at times issue of burden is rendered academic after both sides lead
evidence in the matter. In the case at hand, the plaintiff has led evidence
in the suit, which does not inspire confidence and rather the admissions
of the plaintiff are by themselves sufficient to dismiss the suit on merits.
12. Substantial Question of Law No.3 :- Although this
substantial question of law pertains limitation, answer to the question
will also have bearing on merits of the matter, inasmuch as the evidence
on record clearly establishes that the plaintiff was all the while aware
about the sale transaction and that the evidence had all throughout
acted on the sale transaction and yet the plaintiff did not take any
effective steps to challenge the sale-deed for inordinately long period of
26 years. As stated above, the learned trial Court has recorded a clear
findings of fact regarding execution of agreement of sale dated
28/09/1977, followed by execution of sale-deed dated 08/08/1978. It
is also found that the total land which was initially numbered as Survey
No.117 was sub divided into two parts as Survey Nos.117/1 and 117/2,
in view of registration of sale-deed in favour of defendant No.1 and her
husband. The plaintiff's statement that the suit was filed initially for
reclaiming the possession suggests that possession was not taken from
him forcibly after rejection of application for grant of temporary
injunction as pleaded in the plaint and as such it will have to be held
that possession delivered earlier, as is mentioned in the sale-deed. The
11. SA 112 of 2023.odt
notice with respect to acquisition of land in the year 1985 and notice of
measurement of the year 1986 also show knowledge of acquiescence of
the plaintiff in the sale transaction. The suit which is filed in the year
2004 is clearly barred by limitation.
13. Mr. Kshirsagar, learned Advocate for the appellant
contented that since the suit property was held as occupant Class-II and
that the sale-deed was executed without prior permission from the
Government, the sale-deed is void and therefore, question of limitation
will not arise. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on
the judgments in the matter of Govindrao Shankarrao Reddy Vs.
Rukminibai w/o Vithal Reddy and others, reported in 2009 (2) Mh.L.J.
583 and Smt. Jaikumari Amarbahadursingh and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra, through the Secretary Revenue and Forest Department
and another, reported in 2009 (1) ALL MR 343.
14. Both these judgments do not support the contention of the
appellant. In the matter of Govindrao Shankarrao Reddy (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that revenue documents cannot be said
to be documents of title. This legal position cannot be disputed.
However, the ratio of the said case does not take the case of the
appellant any further. In the matter of Smt. Jaikumari
Amarbahadursingh (supra) this Court has by placing reliance on
Sections 39 and 72 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 held
11. SA 112 of 2023.odt
that the State Government shall have first charge over property for
recovery of an unearned income. The ratio of the said judgment cannot
be applied to the facts of the present case.
15. In the light of the reasons recorded above, the substantial
questions of law framed while issuing notice in the appeal are answered
in favour of the respondents/defendants and against the
appellant/plaintiff. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
Wadkar
Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/11/2025 19:21:13
