Bombay High Court
SA/132/2026 of LAKHPATI S/O SITARAM DHAKADE Vs DIGAMBAR @ SUNIL NARHARI GAWANDE AND ANOTHER on 13 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1 sa132.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.132/2026 Lakhpati S/o Sitaram Dhakade ..V/s.. Digambar @ Sunil Narhari Gawande and another
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. O.R. Deshpande, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Uttam Chakravarti, Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATED : 13.10.2026. Heard.
2. The appellant is the original defendant. The suit was filed for declaration and possession. An application for permission to amend the written statement and to file a counter claim was filed by the defendant. The same was rejected. According to the defendant, he is in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has also stated that he is in possession of the suit property and the defendant is disturbing his possession and, therefore, he had filed the suit.
3. Though an application for permission to amend the written statement and to file a counter-claim was rejected, the defendant has not challenged the same.
4. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Appellate Court before this Court raising a substantial question of law whether the Trial Court as well as learned Lower Appellate Court erred in fact and in law by not considering the contradiction on part of non-appellant regarding place of payment of money as well as purpose of entering into the said transaction with 2026:BHC-NAG:13877
2 sa132.2026 the appellant as an essential ground for deciding whether Section 55(5-a) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, ought to be invoked/referred in the above circumstances?
5. Both the Courts below have given the findings against the appellant. The proposed substantial question of law is not pleaded before both the Courts below and not considered by both the Courts below. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law in this appeal. The concurrent findings are there. The appellant has not challenged the rejection of an application for permission to amend the written statement and to file counter-claim which was rejected by the Trial Court. Hence there is no merit, and no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Therefore, the present second appeal stands dismissed in motion.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) Tambaskar. Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 15/10/2026 16:40:37