Sagar Sanjay Shinde vs Jayashree Janardhan Awatade — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sagar Sanjay Shinde vs Jayashree Janardhan Awatade — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Ad-interim protection: measurement under execution of the partition decree to proceed; actual handing over of possession not to be effected, if not already effected; notice to Respondents returnable on 16.07.2025 (private notice permitted to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Plaintiffs); request for stay on apprehended change of mutation entry deferred to the next occasion.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Courts below considered the aspect of legal necessity for the alienation chain (sale by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to Defendant Nos. 4 to 8, and onward alienation to the Appellants), given that no issue or point on legal necessity was framed by the Courts below. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

By way of ad-interim protection, the process of measurement under execution of the partition decree may proceed, but actual handing over of the possession shall not be effected, if not already effected.

Key takeaways

Notice issued to the Respondents, returnable on 16.07.2025; private notice permitted to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Plaintiffs in addition to the Court's notice.ratio¶4
The Appellants' further request for stay vis-a-vis apprehended action of change of mutation entry is deferred and will be considered on the next occasion (point expressly left open).obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal No. 822 of 2024 with Interim Application No. 15989 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), M.M. Sathaye, J., order dated 18.06.2025 — Urgent mention by the Appellants (Defendant Nos. 11 to 13), who claim to be bonafide purchasers for value without notice of part of the suit property (2 H 2 R in Gat No. 459/2, post Ankoli, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur), upon receipt of notice of measurement in execution of a partition decree; three first appeals against the decree were dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2024. Counsel urged that the Courts below never considered 'legal necessity', no issue or point having been framed thereon, though the Appellants' witness deposed that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 executed a sale deed in favour of Defendant Nos. 4 to 8 for legal necessity, who alienated to the Appellants. Directed (ad-interim): the process of measurement under execution of the partition decree may proceed, but actual handing over of possession shall not be effected, if not already effected; notice to Respondents returnable 16.07.2025, private notice permitted to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Plaintiffs; the request for stay qua apprehended change of mutation entry deferred to the next occasion.

501 ia 15989-24 C.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SECOND APPEAL NO. 822 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15989 OF 2024

SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN

Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2025.06.18 17:54:56 +0530

Sagar Sanjay Shinde and Ors. Versus

...Appellants

Jayashree Janardhan Awatade and Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Ashok Tajane a/w Mr. Balaji Shinde for the Appellants.

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 18^th JUNE, 2025

P.C. :

Heard learned Advocate for the Appellants. Second Appeal is urgently moved on the ground that notice of measurement pursuant to the decree of partition has been received.

The Appellants are Defendant Nos.11 to 13 who claim to be bonafide purchasers without notice of part of the suit property to the extent 2 H 2 R in Gat No. 459/2 at post Ankoli, Taluka Mohol, DistrictSolapur. The suit is decreed granting share to the Plaintiffs. Three first appeals arising out of the decree for partition were heard together and dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2024.

Learned Advocate for the Appellants submitted that the Appellants are in possession of the property purchased by them under a registered sale deed and they are bonafide purchasers for value without notice. He submits that the aspect of legal necessity has not been

Sneha Chavan

1/2

501 ia 15989-24 C.doc

considered by the Courts below, as no issue or point is framed in that regard, despite the Appellants’ witness deposing that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had executed sale deed in favour of Defendant Nos. 4 to 8 for legal necessity, who in turn has alienated portion of the suit property in favour of the Appellants.

Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 16.07.2025. Private notice is permitted to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Plaintiffs, in addition to the Court’s notice.

Learned Advocate for the Appellants fairly submitted that the measurement is already completed, however he expressed apprehension that complete possession may be taken. He also fairly submitted on instructions that part of 2H 2R portion out of Gat No.459/2 i.e. around 2 Acres portion has been already demarcated.

In view of the aforesaid, by way of ad-interim protection, it is directed that process of measurement under execution of the partition decree may proceed, however actual handing over of the possession shall not be effected, if not already effected.

Further request of the Appellants about stay to the effect of the decree vis-a-vis apprehended action of change of mutation entry, will be considered on the next occasion.

All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

Sneha Chavan

2/2