Shantaram Laxman Bole vs Devakabai Chandrashekhar Chopde — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shantaram Laxman Bole vs Devakabai Chandrashekhar Chopde — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the original defendant discharged the presumption with respect to due execution and genuineness of the registered sale deeds, and whether the absence of a specific plea of non-receipt of consideration defeated the defence. +1 more

Court's answer

The concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below on appreciation of evidence do not warrant any interference; the second appeal therefore fails.

Ratio / Principle

This Court acted on the concurrent finding of both courts below that the defendant failed to discharge the presumption with respect to due execution and genuineness of the registered document.

Key takeaways

It was found that there was no specific pleading in the written statement that the consideration mentioned in the sale deed was not received.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal — Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2011 (Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shegaon), suit for possession by the plaintiff against her father based on registered sale deeds executed by the father in her favour; defendant pleaded he was misled into execution as the plaintiff/daughter cared for him in his old age; the defendant died during trial before entering the witness box and his son was arrayed as legal representative. Trial decree dated 27.11.2018 and first-appellate judgment and decree dated 22.10.2024 (District Judge-1, Khamgaon, Regular Civil Appeal No.01 of 2019) contained concurrent findings that the defendant failed to discharge the presumption of due execution and genuineness of the registered document, with no specific pleading of non-receipt of consideration. Held: concurrent findings on appreciation of evidence warrant no interference; Second Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. (Note: cause title describes appellant as 'org. plaintiff' and respondent as 'ori. Defendant', whereas judgment ¶3 states the respondent is the original plaintiff — internal inconsistency noted.)

2026:BHC-NAG:2148

SA 26.2025 JUDG..odt

1

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

SECOND APPEAL NO.26 OF 2025

APPELLANT :- Shantaram Laxman Bole (org. plaintiff) Aged 62 years, Occ. Agriculturist r/o. Pahurjira, Tq. Shegaon, District Buldhana

.. VERSUS .. RESPONDENT :- Devakabai Chandrashekhar Chopade, (ori. Defendant) Aged about 57 years, Occ. Household, R/o. At post Dhanori, Tq. Akot, District Akola.

Mr.A. D. Bhate, Advocate for Appellant.

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 09.02.2026

J U D G M E N T :

1. Heard learned advocate for the appellant.

1. The present Second Appeal is preferred challenging

judgment and decree dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned

Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shegaon in Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2011 and judgment and decree dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-1 Khamgaon in Regular

Civil Appeal No.01 of 2019.

Tanmay...

SA 26.2025 JUDG..odt

2

The respondent is the original plaintiff, who has filed a suit for possession against her father based on sale deeds executed by the father in her favour. The father, who was the original defendant, opposed the suit by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that he was misled into execution of the sale deeds by the plaintiff/daughter, since she was taking care of him during his old age. The sale deeds in question are registered documents. The father expired during the pendency of the suit, before entering the witness box, and his son was thereafter arrayed as his legal representative.

The learned Courts have concurrently held that the defendant has failed to discharge the presumption with respect to due execution and genuineness of a registered document. It is also found that there is no specific pleading in the written statement that consideration mentioned in the sale deed is not received.

The concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Courts on appreciation of evidence therefore do not warrant any interference. Second Appeal is, therefore,

Tanmay...

SA 26.2025 JUDG..odt

3

dismissed with no order as to costs.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

Tanmay...