Dismissed¶¶20

Nago S/O Harba Kherde and Others v. Bhanudas S/O Chintaman Udapure and Others

Bombay HC1 Apr 2025WP/1716/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench — WRIT PETITION NO. 1716 OF 2025 (Nago s/o Harba Kherde & Ors. v. Bhanudas s/o Chintaman Udapure & Ors.), decided 01-04-2025 by Anil L. Pansare, J. Keywords: gift deed; registered sale deed; mutation entry; 7/12 extract; Additional Collector; Additional Commissioner; Section 257 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966; revision; sale deed for security; bound by registered document; dismissed in limine.

What did the court decide?

Once petitioner no.1 had sold the disputed property to respondent no.1 in June, 2002, there arises no question to gift the said property to petitioner nos. 2 and 3 subsequent to executing the sale deed; by setting aside the revenue entry, the authorities below merely reconciled the record in terms of the documents available before them. ¶¶18

Nago S/O Harba Kherde and Others Vs Bhanudas S/O Chintaman Udapure and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:3289

¶2

¶3

21-WP-1716-2025

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1716 OF 2025

¶6

(Nago s/o Harba Kherde & Ors. Vs. Bhanudas s/o Chintaman Udapure & Ors.)

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

¶8

and Registrar's Orders.

¶9

Ms Seema Dhotre, Counsel for the petitioners. Ms M.S. Naik, A.G.P. for respondent nos.

¶10

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J. APRIL 1, 2025

¶11

Heard.

¶12

2] Petitioner no.1 executed a gift deed in favour of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 on 26/3/2015, and accordingly, the names of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were mutated in revenue record, i.e., 7/12 extract.

¶13

3] Respondent no.1 objected to the same on the ground that petitioner no.1 had already sold the property to him on 14/6/2002 by executing a registered sale deed. The mutation entry was accordingly set aside by respondent no.3 – Additional Collector vide order dated 13/4/2023.

¶14

4] The petitioners challenged the same before respondent no.2 – Additional Commissioner under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, who dismissed the revision for the facts and reasons noted hereinabove.

¶15

5] To my mind, the authorities below have, by setting aside the revenue entry, reconciled the record in

¶16

¶17

21-WP-1716-2025

¶18

terms of the documents available before them. Once petitioner no.1 had sold the disputed property to respondent no.1 in June, 2002, there arises no question to gift the said property to petitioner nos. 2 and 3 subsequent to executing sale deed.

¶19

6] As such, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale deed, so executed, was executed for the purpose of security, however, in absence of challenge to the said sale deed, the petitioners will be bound by the registered document.

¶20

7] There is, thus, no substance in the petition. The petition is dismissed in limine. No costs.

¶21

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)

¶22

Sumit

Nago S/O Harba Kherde and Others v. Bhanudas S/O Chintaman Udapure and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nago S/O Harba Kherde and Others v. Bhanudas S/O Chintaman Udapure and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khemchand Bherumal Bajaj Dharamshala and Hospital Trust, Thr. Managing Trustee, Dr. G. K. Bajaj Vs Municipal Corporation, Amravati, Thr. Its Commissioner and Others

Ashish S/O Bhanudas Shende Vs Puja W/O Ashish Shende

Shri Gajanan Nagari Sahkari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Akola, Thr. Chief Executive Officer Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Society, Amravati and Another

The Sr, Divisional Commercial Manager South East Central Railway Nagpur Vs the General Secretary , Parcel Porter Sanghatan Se Railway Nagpur Division Nagpur

Shri. Gangadhar S/O. Sambhashiv Wasekar and Ors. Vs Bhushan S/O. Sudhakar Arjunkar

Sachin Dadarao Rane Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others