Bombay High Court
SHIVAJI GOVIND EKALE AND OTHERSversusHANMANT MADHAVRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that, given the plaintiff’s minority at the time of the sale and the suit’s filing within the limitation period, there was no substantial question of law, and the second appeal was dismissed.
Summary
The appellants challenged a lower court judgment that had upheld a sale deed executed when the plaintiff was only 13 years old. The trial and appellate courts found that the sale was procured by fraud and that the suit was filed within the statutory limitation period. The High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose from these findings. Finding none, the Court concluded that the plaintiff’s minority and the timely filing of the suit barred the appeal. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed in limine and the related civil application was also dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a sale deed executed by a minor is voidable or void.
- Whether the suit filed by the minor was within the period of limitation.
- Whether fraud in execution of the sale deed affects the validity of the transaction.
- Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law.
Subjects
- minor
- sale deed
- fraud
- limitation period
- second appeal
- voidable contract
- property law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41015
1 962 SA.504.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
962 SECOND APPEAL NO. 504 OF 2026
SHIVAJI GOVIND EKALE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
HANMANT MADHAVRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh.
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10049 OF 2026
IN SA/504/2026
...
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 03rd September, 2026.
Per Court :
1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2 The learned Advocate for the appellants pointed out the
impugned judgment and the judgment of the learned Trial Court. The
findings of the learned Appellate Court in paragraph No. 13 are very
clear and decisive, which reads as follows :-
“13] It is further admitted by the defendant that the
relations between father of defendant and the plaintiff’s
father were very close. There were faithful relations
between them and it is on that basis, the father of
defendant No.1 used to look after all the affairs of the
property of the plaintiff’s father. By virtue of such
relationship, the said transaction is effected, that is what
admitted by the defendant in his cross-examination. The
2 962 SA.504.2026.odt
entire plea taken by the defendants nowhere shows that
the plaintiff was of 40 years at the time of execution of sale
deed but the plea taken is to the effect that the said sale
deed is not challenged by the plaintiff within a period of
limitation and the defendants have enjoyed the possession
of the suit property for decades together without any
objection of the plaintiff and therefore, under such
circumstances, now the plaintiff is not entitled to get the
reliefs in question. The manner & way in which plea is
taken by the defendants in their written statement itself
shows that they are not firm and confident to state that
plaintiff was not minor but was major at the time of
execution of sale deed in question.”
3 It is proved that the plaintiff / respondent was 13 years old when
he sold the suit property. When fraud is practiced while executing
sale-deed, the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court
rightly held that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. If
these two important findings as to the age and period of limitation are
considered together, this Court is of the view that there is no substance
in the grounds of objections raised in this second appeal. No any
substantial question of law arises for determination. The second
appeal is therefore, dismissed in limine.
4 Civil Application No.10049 of 2026 is also dismissed.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
nga
Checking your session…