Dismissed¶25

Gumfabai Premanand Kakde v. the State of Maharashtra through the District Collector, Buldana and Others

Bombay HC19 Jan 2026SA/65/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Adverse possession; perfection of title by long possession; admission in cross-examination restricting possession to allotted land; 7/12 extract possession entry only since 2005 versus suit of 2010; suit land reserved for grazing of cattle and road; perversity of concurrent findings; absence of substantial question of law; dismissal of Second Appeal No.65 of 2024; Gumfabai Premanand Kakde v. State of Maharashtra; Gat No.444, Village Kingaonraja, District Buldana; Regular Civil Suit No.79 of 2010; Regular Civil Appeal No.134 of 2019.

What did the court decide?

None; the Second Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶25

Gumfabai Premanand Kakde vs the State of Maharashtra through the District Collector, Buldana 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.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff perfected title over the suit property (a stretch of 3 Acres 2 Gunthas adjoining the 12 acres allotted to her grandfather-in-law) by adverse possession. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The plaintiff had categorically admitted in cross-examination that her possession was restricted to the area of land allotted to her grandfather-in-law (12 acres), and not the suit property; therefore the concurrent findings of the courts below on possession cannot be said to be perverse.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The 7/12 extracts record the plaintiff's possession entry over the suit property only since 2005; even assuming possession became adverse from 2005, title was not perfected by adverse possession by 2010 when the suit was filed.

¶23

Key takeaways

The suit property stands reserved for grazing of cattle and also for road; in view of that reservation the authorities cannot be directed to consider the prayer for allotment of the suit property to the plaintiff.ratio¶24
No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal; the Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal -- High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Rohit W. Joshi, J.; decision dated 19.01.2026) -- plaintiff sued for declaration of ownership over 3 Acres 2 Gunthas of Survey No.79 (renumbered Gat No.444), Village Kingaonraja, District Buldana, claiming title by adverse possession; grandfather-in-law was allotted only 12 acres and the suit property was adjoining land. Concurrent decrees of dismissal affirmed: (i) plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that her possession was confined to the allotted area, hence findings on possession were not perverse; (ii) 7/12 extracts showed possession entry only from 2005, so even on that footing title was not perfected by 2010 when the suit was filed; (iii) suit property stood reserved for cattle grazing and road, and the authorities could not be directed to allot it to the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arose; Second Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

SA 65.24 J.odt

¶3

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

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.65 OF 2024

¶5

Gumfabai Premanand Kakde (dead) thru. Rajendra and ors.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶9

Court's or Judge's Order

¶10

Ms. S. V. Dhore, Advocate for appellants.

¶11

Mr. H. D. Dubey, AGP for respondent(s)/State

¶12

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 19.01.2026.

¶13

. The present second appeal takes exception to the concurrent decrees passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Link Court, Mehkar, District Buldana in Regular Civil Suit No.79 of 2010 and judgment and decree dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Mehkar, District Buldana in Regular Civil Appeal No.134 of 2019.

¶14

The present appellants are the legal representatives of original plaintiff, Gumfabai Kakde and the respondents are the original defendants. Hereinafter parties will be referred as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendants’.

¶15

The original plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit seeking declaration of ownership over the land bearing Survey No.79, renumbered as Gat No.444, situated at Village Kingaonraja, District Buldana to the extent of 3 Acres 2 Gunthas.

¶16

2 17. SA 65.24 J.odt

¶17

It is the case of the plaintiff that land admeasuring 12 Acres in Survey No.79 was allotted to her grandfather-in-law, namely late Bhikardas Harkuji. It is stated that the suit property comprises of a stretch of land admeasuring 3 Acres and 2 Gunthas which is adjoining the said land which was allotted to the grandfather-in-law of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the family is in possession of the suit property since the year 1969 and that by virtue of long standing possession, the plaintiff has perfected tile over the suit property by adverse possession.

¶18

The learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit and the said decree came to be confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court.

¶19

The learned Advocate for the appellant/original plaintiff contends that the suit property was in possession of the family since long and the said fact is corroborated by documentary evidence in the form of 7/12 extracts which are at Exhibits 40,41 and 54.

¶20

Perusal of the judgments delivered by the learned Courts will indicate that the plaintiff had categorically admitted, during the course of her cross-examination, that her possession was restricted to the area of land which was allotted to her grandfather-in-law. It is not in dispute that the grandfather-in-law was allotted only 12 Acres of land and not the suit property, which is a land adjoining the said allotted land. In view of the aforesaid

¶21

3 17. SA 65.24 J.odt

¶22

admission, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the learned Courts with respect to possession are perverse.

¶23

Likewise, the 7/12 Extracts also demonstrate that entry with respect to possession of plaintiff over the suit property is recorded only since the year 2005. The suit is filed in the year 2010. Assuming the possession, the alleged possession became adverse since the year 2005, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had perfected her title by adverse possession by the year 2010 when the suit was filed.

¶24

Likewise, the record also indicates that the suit property is reserved for grazing of cattle and also for road. In view of the aforesaid, the authorities cannot be directed to consider the prayer for allotment of suit property to the plaintiff.

¶25

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

¶26

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

¶27

Tanmay...

Gumfabai Premanand Kakde v. the State of Maharashtra through the District Collector, Buldana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gumfabai Premanand Kakde v. the State of Maharashtra through the District Collector, Buldana 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

Mr. Mahadeo S/O Khamdeo Rokade and Others vs Mrs. Mangala W/O Bhojraj Lanjewar and Other

Sadan S/O Kisan Deshmukh and Others vs Madan S/O Kisan Deshmukh and Others

Smt. Kaveri Pundlik Mapari and Antoher vs Smt. Godavari Santosh Tangade

Mr. Pravin Mansaram Walde and Others vs Shailesh Ankush Dhanvijay and Another

Asha W/O Arvind Henry Thr. P. O. a. Holder Mrs. Shivalini. a. Misal vs Smt. Komal Wd/O Govindram Tilwani and Others

Shri. Sagar S/O Narendra Gandhi and Another vs Smt. Manisha W/O Vijay Pandey and Others