Bombay High Court
SHRI. DATTU BHAU SHINDEversusSACHIN RAMCHANDRA TAWARE (DECEASED THR. LRs) AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Sale Deed was not declared void for force or coercion and, finding no substantial question of law, the appeals were dismissed.
Summary
The appellants, brothers Dattu Bhau Shinde and co‑heirs, challenged a district court decree that dismissed their claim that a Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996, by which the entire suit land was conveyed to the respondents, was a nullity on the grounds of force and coercion. The suit arose from a dispute over a 6‑acre and later 8‑acre parcel of land in Malegaon (Bk), where the original plaintiff had sold only 8 acres to the respondents, while his brother (Defendant No.5) held a 50 % share, later represented by Anusaya Rau Malawe. The trial court held that the sale deed could not affect Anusaya’s 50 % share and rejected the plaintiff’s allegation of coercion; the appellate court affirmed those findings. On appeal, the appellants argued that the appellate court merely copied the trial court’s findings and failed to examine the alleged coercion. The High Court observed that even assuming any misrepresentation, the plaintiff’s share was limited to the 8 acres sold, and there was no evidence of force or coercion affecting that portion; consequently, no substantial question of law existed. The Court therefore dismissed the appeals and ordered the related civil applications to be disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996 is void on the ground of force or coercion.
- Whether the appellate court erred by merely adopting the trial court’s findings without independent analysis.
- Whether the plaintiff’s limited share of 8 acres precludes a declaration of nullity for the entire suit property.
- Whether any substantial question of law arises warranting interference with the lower courts’ decrees.
Subjects
- property law
- sale deed
- coercion
- nullity
- appellate review
- civil appeal
- joint ownership
- declaration suit
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:38565
k 1/5 3 sa 770.16 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.770 OF 2016
Dattu Bhau Shinde
since deceased through legal heirs
Suman Dattatray Shinde
deceased through legal representatives
Rajendra Dattatray Shinde & Ors. ....Appellants
V/S
Sachin Ramchandra Taware
deceased through his legal heirs
Parth Sachin Taware & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1523 OF 2016
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.770 OF 2016
Dattu Bhau Shinde
since deceased through legal heirs
Suman Dattatray Shinde
deceased through legal representatives
Rajendra Dattatray Shinde & Ors. ....Appellants
V/S
Sachin Ramchandra Taware
deceased through his legal heirs
Parth Sachin Taware & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO.765 OF 2016
Dattu Bhau Shinde
since deceased through legal heirs
Suman Dattatray Shinde
deceased through legal representatives
Rajendra Dattatray Shinde & Ors. ....Appellants
V/S
Sachin Ramchandra Taware
deceased through his legal heirs
Parth Sachin Taware & Ors. ....Respondents
katkam Page No. 1 of 5
k 2/5 3 sa 770.16 as.doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1505 OF 2016
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.765 OF 2016
Dattu Bhau Shinde
since deceased through legal heirs
Suman Dattatray Shinde
deceased through legal representatives
Rajendra Dattatray Shinde & Ors. ....Appellants
V/S
Sachin Ramchandra Taware
deceased through his legal heirs
Parth Sachin Taware & Ors. ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Nishant Tripathi with Mr. Amey Sawant, Ms. Neha Parte, Mr. Pratik
Sabrad, Ms. Eshwaree Kudalkar i/b Mr. Suresh Sabrad for the Appellant.
Mr. Siddharth C. Wakankar for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 21 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1. These Appeals are filed challenging the judgment and decree
dated 23 November 2015 passed by the learned District Judge-1,
Baramati, dismissing Appellants’ Regular Civil Appeal No.101 of 2012
and allowing Regular Civil Appeal No.102 of 2012 filed by Defendant
Nos.1 to 4.
2. I have heard Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for
Appellants and Mr. Wakankar, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
katkam Page No. 2 of 5
k 3/5 3 sa 770.16 as.doc
3. Plaintiff and Defendant No.5 are real brothers. They believed that
the suit property bearing Gat No.570, Survey No.1020, admeasuring 6 H
52 R at village Malegaon (Bk), Taluka Baramati was in their exclusive
ownership and possession. It is the case of Plaintiff that he intended to
sell only land admeasuring 6 acres and accordingly executed an
Agreement for Sale dated 6 July 1992. It appears that the fresh
agreement in respect of 2 more acres was executed between the parties.
This is how the Plaintiff admits that he intended to sell land
admeasuring 8 acres to Defendant Nos.1 to 4. However, by Sale Deed
dated 21 November 1996, the entire suit land was shown to have been
sold in favour of Defendant Nos.1 to 4. Plaintiff therefore filed Special
Civil Suit No.168 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division,
Baramati seeking a declaration that Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996
was a nullity.
4. In the Suit so filed, the brother of Plaintiff-Dadu Aganu Shinde
was impleaded as Defendant No.5. In that Suit, Smt. Anusaya Rau
Malawe sought an entry and impleadment contending that suit property
was granted by way of a Sanad in favour of Plaintiff’s father and
Defendant No.2’s husband Rau and that therefore Defendant No.2-
Anusaya had 50% share in the suit property. Her application was allowed
and Anusaya came to be impleaded as Plaintiff No.2 in the Suit. The
original Plaintiff did not challenge order impleading Anusaya as Plaintiff
No.2 and prosecuted the suit jointly with Anusaya. At the end of the trial
it was found that Rau indeed was 50% owner in respect of the land and
therefore Anusaya became 50% owner of the suit property. The Trial
katkam Page No. 3 of 5
k 4/5 3 sa 770.16 as.doc
Court therefore has declared that the Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996
was not binding on the share of Plaintiff No.2-Anusaya. So far as the
claim of original Plaintiff is concerned, the Trial Court negatived the
same by not accepting the theory of force and coercion. The Appellate
Court has concurrently upheld the findings of the Trial Court. However,
it appears that during pendency of the Appeal, Defendant Nos.1 to 4
compromised with Plaintiff No.2-Anusaya and accordingly Regular Civil
Appeal No.102 of 2012 filed by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 challenging
declaration made in favour of Plaintiff No.2-Anusaya was rendered
infructuous.
5. Mr. Tripathi has contended that the Appellate Court has not
properly decided the Appeals and has merely copied most of the findings
recorded by the Trial Court. Mr. Tripathi is not entirely wrong in saying
so and one can easily see mere copying of various findings of the Trial
Court by the first Appellate Court. This ought to have been avoided.
Being a Court of First Appeal, it is the duty of the District Court to
marshal the evidence and to examine an element of perversity in the
findings recorded by the Trial Court. Merely copying of findings recorded
by the Trial Court is not the correct way of deciding the First Appeal by
the District Court. However, in the present case, mere factum of copying
of some of the findings of Trial Court by the First Appellate Court is not a
reason enough to interfere in the decree made by the District Court.
Logically seen, Plaintiff’s case of force and coercion in the matter of
execution of Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996 was demolished the
moment its was established that Plaintiff No.2-Anusaya was 50% owner
katkam Page No. 4 of 5
k 5/5 3 sa 770.16 as.doc
in the suit property. The original Plaintiff himself admitted that he did
intend to sell 8 acres of land to Defendant Nos.1 to 4. Original Plaintiff’s
share in the suit property is only to the extent of 8 acres. Therefore, even
if it is assumed that there was any misrepresentation on the part of
Defendant Nos.1 to 4 in getting Sale Deed in respect of the entire suit
property executed from original Plaintiff and Defendant No.5, the same
would reflect upon the share of Plaintiff No.2-Anusaya. The so called
force or coercion would not affect execution of sale deed by original
Plaintiff and Defendant No.5 qua land admeasuring 8 acres in favour of
Defendant Nos.1 to 4. To make the case of original Plaintiff worse, his
brother (Defendant No.5) did not support him. He admitted validity of
the Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996. Even otherwise beyond vaguely
pleading force and coercion, original Plaintiff failed to prove that the
Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996 was really marred by any force or
coercion as alleged.
6. Considering the above position, in my view, no substantial
question of law is involved in any of the two Appeals. Second Appeals are
accordingly disposed of.
7. In view of disposal of the Second Appeals, nothing would survive
in the Civil Applications and the same are also accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Page No. 5 of 5
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/09/2026 11:09:29
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.