Bombay High Court
CAS/1457/2026 of VASANTA MADHAVRAO BHANARKAR (DEAD) THR ITS LRS SMT CHHAYA VASANTA BHANARKAR AND OTHERS Vs SHRI VITTHAL GANPATI BHANARKAR AND OTHERS on 9 October 2026
1457-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
1 / 2 6-cas 1457-26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION (S) NO.1457 OF 2026
IN
SECOND APPEAL ST NO. 22216 OF 2026
Vasanta Madhavrao Bhanarkar (dead) through LRs.
Vs.
Vitthal Ganpati Bhanarkar and ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.L.G.Tiple, counsel for the Appellant.
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 09/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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. The applicants have filed the present application seeking leave to file the Second Appeal. The original appellant died after the judgment was passed by the first appellate Court. The legal heirs of the original appellant were parties to the proceedings before the first appellate Court and have, therefore, filed the present application.
2. The application is within limitation. Hence, the application is allowed. The applicants are permitted to file the Second Appeal as the legal heirs of the original appellant along with the other appellants.
3. The Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. Kavita
2 / 2 6-cas 1457-26 SECOND APPEAL ST NO. 22216 OF 2026
1. Deceased appellant, Vasanta, was the original defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition, which came to be decreed by the trial Court. The original defendant preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
2. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the present appeal, proposing the following substantial questions of law:
i. Whether suit for partition without including admitted ancestral property Plot No.790 is maintainable being a case of partial partition?
ii. Whether oral family arrangement requires registered document?
iii. Whether decree passed after death of defendant without bringing LRs on record is nullity under Order 22 CPC?
3. Issue notice to the respondents on the above mentioned proposed substantial questions of law, returnable on 05/11/2026.
JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/10/2026 18:41:14