Bombay High Court
CAS/598/2024 of NARAYAN BHBIMRAO VAIRALE Vs SAU. INDUBAI PURUSHOTTAM KHARAD AND OTHERS on 8 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
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.
19. cas.598.24+sa.st.13487.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.598 OF 2024 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.13487 OF 2024 (NARAYAN BHIMRAO VAIRALE VS SAU. INDUBAI PURUSHOTTAM KHARAD AND ORS.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. K.R. Bhise, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Chetan Dongare, Advocate h/f Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
CORAM:-
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI
, J.
DATED :-
OCTOBER 08, 2026
The appellant has filed this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay is of 15 days.
2. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned.
3. Registry is directed to register the appeal. SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.13487 OF 2024
4. The appellant is the original plaintiff in the suit filed for partition. The suit was decreed. The defendant has challenged the said judgment in the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court.
19. cas.598.24+sa.st.13487.24.odt
5. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present Second Appeal, proposing the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the learned First Appellate Court has exceeded jurisdiction in holding that the suit property is not joined Hindu family property, wherein the appellant has share?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is legally sustainable, in view of the fact that the Gift Deed dated 25/06/2001 executed by Bhimrao in favour of original defendant no. 1/Indubai is void-ab-initio and not binding on the plaintiff/present appellant?
6. Issue notice to the respondents on the above mentioned proposed substantial questions of law, returnable after four weeks.
7. Mr. Dongare, learned Counsel waives service of notice for respondent No.1.
8. Office objections(s), if any, shall be removed before the next date.
( MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI
, J ) *Divya Signed by: Mrs. Divya Baldwa Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/10/2026 18:15:03