Dismissed¶36

Subhash Mahadev Pokale v. M/S. Yashwant Constructions through Its Proprietor Dnyaneshwar Murlidhar Liagude

Bombay HC14 Jan 2026SA/536/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Second Appeal No. 536 of 2025 (N. J. Jamadar, J., 02-04-2026); dismissal of second appeal for want of substantial question of law; development agreement does not pass title; cancellation of development agreement and irrevocable power of attorney for breach; subsequent development agreement null and void for want of competence and consent; discrepancy in identification of suit property immaterial; Order XLI Rule 27 CPC additional evidence refused; Survey No. 11/3, Dhayari, Pune; Yashwant Constructions; Subhash Mahadev Pokale.

What did the court decide?

The Court was unable to agree with the appellants' submissions; no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the second appeal. ¶35

Subhash Mahadev Pokale vs M/S. Yashwant Constructions through Its Proprietor Dnyaneshwar Murlidhar Liagude — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether a substantial question of law arises in the second appeal — specifically, whether the impugned decree could have been passed when the identity of the suit property itself was allegedly shrouded in mystery (as urged by the appellants). +2 more

¶24

Court's answer

The Court was unable to agree with the appellants' submissions; no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the second appeal.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had no antecedent right, title and interest in the suit property; Defendant No. 1 came into possession under the development agreement only, so no mileage can be drawn from the purported discrepancy in the identification of the suit property.

¶35

Key takeaways

What was executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Defendant No. 1 was only a development agreement; title in the suit property did not pass to Defendant No. 1, which is material to the nature of the jural relationship between the parties.ratio¶28
Although Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 asserted that the plaintiffs had consented to the development agreement dated 24th October, 2007, no evidence was led by the defendants to substantiate that defence; the plaintiffs' claim had gone virtually unimpeached.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal dismissed — no substantial question of law. The appellants (original Defendant Nos. 2 and 3) claimed only under a subsequent development agreement dated 24th October, 2007 executed by Defendant No. 1, who held no title: the 2005 development agreement in his favour did not pass title, and he possessed the suit property (Survey No. 11/3, village Dhayari, Pune) under the development agreement alone. The purported discrepancy in the identification of the suit property therefore afforded the defendants no advantage, and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arose. The defence of plaintiffs' consent to the 2007 agreement was unsupported by any evidence, the plaintiffs' claim having gone virtually unimpeached; the complaint of unjustified rejection of the Order XLI Rule 27 CPC additional-evidence application was likewise not accepted. Dismissing the appeal against the District Judge, Pune's decree dated 30th May, 2025 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 28/2023 (upholding the Civil Judge's decree dated 13th March, 2018 in Special Civil Suit No. 1520/2014 cancelling the development agreement and power of attorney and directing delivery of possession), the Court also disposed of Interim Application No. 2531 of 2026.

¶1

2026:BHC-AS:16303

¶2

905 SA 536-25.DOC

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 536 OF 2025 IN

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2531 OF 2026

¶6

Subhash Mahadev Pokale & anr. ..Appellants Versus M/s. Yashwant Constructions & ors. …Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni a/w Mr. Yash Naik i/b Vaibhav Gaikwad, for the Appellants.

¶8

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 2^nd APRIL 2026

¶9

ORDER :

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 30^th May, 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No. 28/2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants/original Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 against the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 1520/2014 dated 13^th March, 2018, came to be dismissed.

¶12

The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – original plaintiffs instituted Special Civil Suit No. 1520/2014 seeking a declaration that, the development agreement dated 17^th March, 2005 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the Defendant No. 1 in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 11/3 admeasuring 8R

¶13

1/5

¶14

SAINATH, PA

¶15

905 SA 536-25.DOC

¶16

situated at village Dhayari, Pune (the suit property) stood cancelled and terminated and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the suit property, on account of the breach of the obligations thereunder by the Defendant No. 1 and the fraudulent transfer of the interest in the suit property by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 – appellants herein.

¶17

The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 contested the plaintiffs claim and asserted that, the development agreement dated 24^th October, 2007 was executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 with the consent of the plaintiffs. However, the defendant did not adduce any evidence to bolster up their defence.

¶18

By a judgment and decree dated 13^th March, 2018, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit and declared that, the development agreement and irrevocable power of attorney executed by plaintiffs in favour of the Defendant No. 1 stood cancelled, in view of the breach of the obligations by the Defendant No. 1 and, consequently, the subsequent development agreement dated 24^th October, 2007, executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Defendant Nos. 2 ad 3 was null and void ab initio and did not bind the rights of the plaintiffs in

¶19

2/5

¶20

SAINATH, PA

¶21

905 SA 536-25.DOC

¶22

the suit property. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were also directed to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs, and restrained from creating further third party rights in the suit property.

¶23

Being aggrieved, the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 preferred appeal before the District Court. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal finding no fault with the decree impugned before him.

¶24

Mr. Ashotush Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that, there was a serious discrepancy regarding the identification of the property in respect of which, the plaintiffs had allegedly executed a development agreement in favour of the Defendant No. 1. The proceedings were initiated before the Revenue Authorities. Thus, the appellants/Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had filed an application for permission to adduce additional evidence under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the impugned judgment, the said application was also unjustifiably rejected by the learned District Judge. Thus, a substantial question of law as to whether the impugned decree could have been passed when the identity of the suit property itself was shrouded in mystery arises for consideration, submitted Mr. Kulkarni.

¶25

3/5

¶26

SAINATH, PA

¶27

905 SA 536-25.DOC

¶28

I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the aforesaid submission. The nature of jural relationship between the parties assumes material significance. What was executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the Defendant No. 1 was only a development agreement. The title in the suit property did not pass to the Defendant No. 1.

¶29

Apart from the issue of breach of obligations on the part of the Defendant No 1 as the payments were not made within the stipulated period, the very competence of the Defendant No. 1 to execute a further development agreement in favour of the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was itself in question. Though the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 claimed that, the plaintiffs had given consent for the execution of the development agreement by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, yet, no evidence was led by the defendants to substantiate the said defence. In fact, the plaintiffs claim had gone virtually unimpeached.

¶30

In the aforesaid backdrop, the submissions premised on the purported discrepancy in the identity of the suit property do not advance the cause of the Defendants No. 2 and 3.

¶31

Suffice to note, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had no antecedent right, title and interest in the suit property and the

¶32

4/5

¶33

SAINATH, PA

¶34

905 SA 536-25.DOC

¶35

Defendant No. 1 came in possession of the suit property under the development agreement only. Therefore, no mileage can be drawn from the purported discrepancy in the identification of the suit property. Thus, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration.

¶36

The Second Appeal thus stands dismissed.

¶37

In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the IA/2531/2026 also stands disposed.

¶38

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶39

5/5

¶40

SAINATH, PA Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/04/2026 21:09:40

Subhash Mahadev Pokale v. M/S. Yashwant Constructions through Its Proprietor Dnyaneshwar Murlidhar Liagude

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Mahadev Pokale v. M/S. Yashwant Constructions through Its Proprietor Dnyaneshwar Murlidhar Liagude

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramniklal Shamji Patel and Ors. vs Jiyauddin Suleman Pira Since Deceased Thru. Legal Heirs and Ors.

Dr Rakesh Chandra Vemuri vs Crown Veterinary Services Pvt. Ltd.

Uflex Ltd. Thr. Siddharth Supervisor (Legal) vs D.R. Coats Ink and Resins Pvt. Ltd.

Fehmina Ishratulla Salmani vs Mr Ishratulla Salmani

M/S. Mahanagar Realty vs Mr. Anita Jayant Oswal

Mahanagar Realty vs Anita Jayant Oswal