Nana Kisanrao Palatkar vs Bandu Kisanrao Palatkar — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Nana Kisanrao Palatkar vs Bandu Kisanrao Palatkar — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interlocutory order only: notice issued to respondent on the substantial question of law, returnable 25/09/2025; appellant permitted to serve the respondent by speed post in addition to regular mode of service; execution of the impugned decree stayed till the returnable date. Final decision on the appeal awaited.

Issue for consideration

Substantial question of law framed: whether the learned civil Courts below erred in taking the evidence on record in proper perspective — particularly the plaintiff's statement in notice Exh.56 that he was Karta of the joint Hindu Family and the deposition of the attesting witnesses — in holding that the suit property was the self acquired property of the plaintiff and not joint Hindu Family property.

Court's answer

The Court noted that one of the attesting witnesses had stated that the plaintiff purchased the property as Karta of the family and, in view of that circumstance together with the plaintiff's Exh.56 notice, issued notice to the respondent on the framed substantial question of law; the merits of the self-acquisition versus joint Hindu Family characterisation were left open for decision after notice.

Ratio / Principle

In the connected Civil Application (CAS) No.649/2025, the Court stayed execution of the impugned decree till the returnable date (25/09/2025), expressly in view of the substantial question of law framed in the appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Second Appeal No.196/2025 (Rohit W. Joshi, J., 12/09/2025) — interlocutory admission order. Real brothers working as barbers litigated possession of suit property: the plaintiff pleaded self-acquisition; the defendant pleaded joint Hindu Family property acquired through the family barber-shop business. The learned civil Court decreed possession to the plaintiff, resting on purchase, mutation and tax receipts in the plaintiff's name. The Court, however, noted that the plaintiff's own notice at Exh.56 stated he was Karta of the joint family, and that an attesting witness deposed the purchase was made as Karta. On that material the Court framed a substantial question of law — whether the courts below erred in holding the property self-acquired of the plaintiff despite that evidence — issued notice to the respondent returnable 25/09/2025, permitted service by speed post in addition to regular mode, and stayed execution of the impugned decree till the returnable date. No statute or precedent is cited; no merits holding is recorded.

SA 196 of 2025.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.196/2025

Nana Kisanrao Palatkar ...Versus… Bandu Kisanrao Palatkar

- - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for appellant

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 12/09/2025

The plaintiff and defendant are real brothers and were working as barbers. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession against his brother/defendant stating that the suit property is self acquired property. The defendant came with a defence that the suit property is a joint Hindu Family property acquired by one family business of the parties by running barber’s shop.

It appears that the plaintiff has issued notice at Exh.56 in which he has stated that he was Karta of joint family. Perusal of the findings by the learned civil Court demonstrates the fact that the property was purchased in the name of plaintiff and it was mutated in the name of plaintiff. Tax receipts etc. are also in the name of the plaintiff, which were held by the learned civil Court while passing the decree for possession.

It would be pertinent to state that one of the attesting witnesses has stated that the plaintiff purchased the

SA 196 of 2025.odt

2

property as Karta of the family. In view of above, issue notice to the respondent on the following substantial question of law.

Have the learned civil Courts below erred in

taking into consideration the evidence on record in proper perspective, particularly the statement of plaintiff in the notice at Exh.56 that he was Karta of joint Hindu Family as also deposition of attesting witnesses in holding that the property was self acquired property of the plaintiff and not the Joint Hindu Family property ?

Notice is made returnable on 25/09/2025.

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.649/2025

Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 25/09/2025.

The appellant is permitted to serve the respondent by speed post in addition to regular mode of service.

Till the returnable date, the execution of the impugned decree is stayed, in view of substantial question of law framed in the appeal.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

Wadkar

Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/09/2025 17:58:58