Shahubai Valu Wagh vs Waman Sajan Phadol — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shahubai Valu Wagh vs Waman Sajan Phadol — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second Appeal No. 631 of 2016 admitted on substantial questions of law (I)-(III); Interim Application No. 10479 of 2024 allowed in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d) — delay condoned, abatement set aside, heirs/legal representatives of the deceased appellant brought on record (amendment within three weeks); interim restraint that parties shall not create third party rights in the suit property till further orders; Civil Application No. 1284 of 2016 listed for hearing on 17th June 2026.

Issue for consideration

Substantial question of law I: Whether, in view of the public notice dated 20th August 2002, the power of attorney in favour of defendant no.1 stood revoked, and therefore the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 would not transfer any title in the name of defendant no.2. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

Second Appeal No. 631 of 2016 is admitted on the three framed substantial questions of law.

Key takeaways

In Interim Application No. 10479 of 2024 (bringing heirs/legal representatives of the deceased appellant on record), the delay, if any, is condoned and abatement, if any, is set aside; the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d).ratio¶¶39
The parties shall not create any third party rights in respect of the suit property until further orders (interim restraint pending hearing of Civil Application No. 1284 of 2016).ratio¶¶37
Amendment consequent to bringing the legal heir(s) on record to be carried out within three weeks.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Gauri Godse, J.), order dated 22 April 2026 — Second Appeal No. 631 of 2016 (Smt. Shahubai Valu Wagh, deceased, through legal heir Dilip Valu Wagh v. Shri Waman Sajan Phadol and Anr.) ADMITTED on three substantial questions of law: (I) whether the power of attorney in favour of defendant no.1 stood revoked by the public notice dated 20th August 2002, so that the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 transferred no title; (II) whether, in view of the principle settled by this Court in Surekha Sakharam Washiwale v. Naobha Dhondiba Bharekar and Ors, 2015(1) Bom C.R 135, the said sale deed was not a valid transfer; and (III) whether, absent specific performance of the agreement in favour of defendant no.1 and given the notice dated 15th February 2003 cancelling that agreement, the defendants could claim any right, title or interest in the suit property. Interim Application No. 10479 of 2024 allowed: delay condoned, abatement set aside, heirs/legal representatives of the deceased appellant brought on record, amendment within three weeks. Parties restrained from creating third-party rights in the suit property till further orders; Civil Application No. 1284 of 2016 listed for 17th June 2026. No merits decided at this stage.

11-sa-631-2016-cas-1284-2016.doc

varsha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SECOND APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2016

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1284 OF 2016

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10479 OF 2024

Smt. Shahubai Valu Wagh (deceased … Appellants/Applicants through Legal Heir Shri Dilip Valu Wagh)

vs.

Shri Waman Sajan Phadol and Anr … Respondents

Mr. Girish Agrawal a/w. Ms. Chitra Darekar for the Appellant. Mr. Anil Kumar K. Patil a/w. Mr. Digvijay A. patil a/w. Mr. Laxmikant Patil for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 22^nd APRIL 2026

ORDER:

SECOND APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2016

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondent

no.1 has expired. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent no.2 is already on record in a different capacity who is wife of deceased respondent no.1. He therefore submits that there

would not be any question of abatement. He however, submits that he shall file appropriate application to bring on record any other heirs of deceased respondent no.1, if any.

Digitally signed VARSHA by VARSHAVIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date:2026.04.23 19:37:13 +0530

Page no. 1 of 3

11-sa-631-2016-cas-1284-2016.doc

2. Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial

questions of law:

I) Whether in view of the public notice dated 20^th August 2002, the Power of Attorney in favour of defendant no.1, stood revoked and therefore the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 would not transfer any title in the name of defendant no.2.

II) Whether in view of the legal principle settled by this court in case of Surekha Sakharam Washiwale Vs. Naobha Dhondiba Bharekar and Ors¹ , the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 would not be a valid transfer?

III) In the absence of any specific performance of the agreement in favour of defendant no.1 and in view of the notice dated 15^th February 2003, cancelling agreement in favour of defendant no.1, whether the defendants would be entitled to claim any right, title and interest of whatsoever nature in respect of the suit property?

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 waives notice.

Call for records and proceedings.

1 2015(1) Bom C.R 135

Page no. 2 of 3

11-sa-631-2016-cas-1284-2016.doc

Printing is dispensed with.

Learned advocate for the appellants shall file private paperbook within a period of one year from today.

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1284 OF 2016

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 seeks time to file affidavit-in-reply.

List the Civil Application for hearing on 17^th June 2026.

The parties shall not create any third party rights in respect of the suit property till further orders.

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10479 OF 2024

This application is for bringing on record the names of heirs and legal representatives of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay if any is condoned, abatement if any, is set aside. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (c) and (d).

Amendment to be carried out within three weeks.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

Page no. 3 of 3