Dismissed¶17

Bhaurao Sitaram Dhurve and Other v. Smt. Nirmala Ramdas Atram and Others

Bombay HC27 Jan 2026SA/4/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bhaurao S/o Sitaram Dhurve v. Smt. Nirmala Ramdas Atram; Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Second Appeal No. 04 of 2026; decided 27-01-2026 by Rohit W. Joshi, J.; partition and separate possession of Survey No.37 (5.66 HR) and Survey No.59 (0.72 HR), village Mangrul Rith, Tahsil Chimur, District Chandrapur; ancestral property; 1/5th share; ante-dated partition deed; stamp paper purchased after document date; unregistered and inadequately stamped document; proof of will; attesting witness DW-2; secondary evidence; no substantial question of law; second appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the Second Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶17

Bhaurao Sitaram Dhurve and Other vs Smt. Nirmala Ramdas Atram and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Second Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Partition Deed dated 07/08/2008 (Exh.66) relied upon by defendant Nos.1 and 2 could be acted upon, given that it is unregistered, inadequately stamped, and dated before the purchase of its stamp paper on 06/09/2008. +2 more

¶13

Court's answer

The Partition Deed dated 07/08/2008 is an ante-dated document, since the stamp paper on which it is written was purchased subsequently on 06/09/2008; it is also unregistered and not adequately stamped. This Court is fully in agreement with the findings of the learned courts below in disregarding the said Partition Deed.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Due execution and attestation of the Will dated 25/08/2008 is not proved, as the attesting witness (DW-2) could not identify the signature of the scribe on the Will (and the original Will never came on record, secondary evidence having been permitted); further, on the defendants' own case under the Partition Deed, the testator had no title over Survey No.37 on the alleged date of execution of the Will. Both courts below properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence.

¶14

Key takeaways

In view of the concurrent findings on the Partition Deed and the Will, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal; the Second Appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition suit — defendant Nos.1 and 2 relied on an unregistered 'Partition Deed' dated 07/08/2008 (Exh.66) scribed on a Rs.100/- stamp paper purchased later, on 06/09/2008, showing it to be an ante-dated, unregistered and inadequately stamped document, and on a 'Will' dated 25/08/2008 (Exh.67) whose original never came on record and whose attesting witness (DW-2) could not identify the scribe's signature, so due execution and attestation were not proved; moreover, on the defendants' own case under the Partition Deed the testator had no title over Survey No.37 on the alleged date of the Will. Concurrent findings of the two courts below upheld; no substantial question of law arose; Second Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs (Rohit W. Joshi, J.; decision dated 27 January 2026; neutral citation 2026:BHC-NAG:1374).

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:1374

¶2

1 43-sa 04.2025.odt

¶3

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

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 04 OF 2026

¶5

( Bhaurao S/o Sitaram Dhurve and another vs. Smt. Nirmala Ramdas Atram and others )

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Mr. V.A.Patait, Advocate for appellants. Ms. Kirti Satute, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Anshul Kurul, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶8

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. JANUARY 27, 2026

¶9

The present appeal is filed by the original defendant Nos.1 and 2. The respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession with respect to two agricultural lands bearing Survey No.37 admeasuring 5.66 HR and Survey No.59 admeasuring 0.72 HR, situated at village Mangrul Rith, Tahsil – Chimur, District – Chandrapur. The said properties are hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’.

¶10

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are ancestral properties and the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 who are related to each other as brothers and sisters, are entitled to 1/5^th share each therein. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are the brothers opposed the suit placing reliance on two documents i.e. ‘Partition Deed’ dated 07/08/2008 (Exh.66) and ‘Will’ dated 25/08/2008(Exh.67). As per the Partition Deed dated 07/08/2008 father Sitaram gave 2.76 HR land in suit property bearing Survey No.37 each, to his sons the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and retained the suit property bearing Survey No.59 for himself. This Partition Deed dated 07/08/2008 is not a registered document. It is scribed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-.

¶11

KOLHE

¶12

2 43-sa 04.2025.odt

¶13

The date of purchase of stamp paper is mentioned as 06/09/2008. In view of the fact that the Partition Deed is dated 07/08/2008 and is written on a stamp paper purchased on 06/09/2008, the learned Courts have disbelieved the said Partition Deed. This Court is fully in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Courts in disregarding the said Partition Deed on the ground that it is dated 07/08/2008 and the stamp paper on which it is written, was purchased subsequently on 06/09/2008. This is a clear indication of the document being an ante dated document. The document is also not registered and not adequately stamped.

¶14

As regards the Will, it must be stated that the original Will has not come on record. However, permission was granted to lead secondary evidence with respect to the same. The attesting witness of the Will (DW-2) could not identify the signature of the testator on the Will. As per the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the Will is executed after execution of the Partition Deed. If the case of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 with respect to Partition Deed is accepted, then the father who is the testator had no right to execute the Will on 25/08/2008, since according to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 he had already given suit property bearing Survey No.37 to his sons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the Partition Deed dated 07/08/2008. Thus, he had no title over Survey No.37 as on 25/08/2008 i.e. alleged date of execution of Will. The Will was marked exhibit only because it was referred to the plaintiff’s witness in the cross-examination. Since the attesting witness (DW-2) could not identify the signature of scribe on the Will, due execution and attestation of the Will is not proved. Both the Courts have properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence in this regard.

¶15

KOLHE

¶16

3 43-sa 04.2025.odt

¶17

1. In view of the aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶18

( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )

¶19

KOLHE Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/01/2026 19:13:06

Bhaurao Sitaram Dhurve and Other v. Smt. Nirmala Ramdas Atram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaurao Sitaram Dhurve and Other v. Smt. Nirmala Ramdas Atram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rukhminibai Wd/O Mansram Lodh and Others vs Sunanda Wd/O Trambak Chincholkar and Others

Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur, Thr. General Manager Legal (Wcl) vs Shivratan S/O Jamnadas Daga (Since Deceased, Thr. His Lrs.) and Others

Likhiram S/O Kisanji Nagpure (Dead) through Lrs. Smt. Motibai Wd/O Likhiram Nagpur and Others vs Patiram K. Nagopure (Dead) Chhatrapati P. Nagpure (Dead) through Lrs. Pushpabai C. Nagpure and Ors.

Shri Govinda Safai Kamgar Nagrik Sewa Co-Operative Soc., Amravati Thr. Rajesh S. Sharma vs Municipal Corporation of City of Amravati Thr. Its Commissioner, Amravati

Subhashchandra S/O Ramkrushna Rangarekar @ Rangari vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the District Collector, Akola and Others

Sou. Roshani Sameer Modak vs Sameer Arvind Modak