Subhash Mahadev PokaleversusYashwant Constructions Through its Proprietor Dnyaneshwar Murlidhar Liagude

2026:BHC-AS:16304
                                                                   905 SA 536-25.DOC

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                SECOND APPEAL NO. 536 OF 2025
                                              IN
                             INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2531 OF 2026

               Subhash Mahadev Pokale & anr.                      ..Appellants
                    Versus
               M/s. Yashwant Constructions & ors.              …Respondents

               Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni a/w Mr. Yash Naik i/b Vaibhav
                    Gaikwad, for the Appellants.

                                         CORAM :      N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                         DATE   :     2nd APRIL 2026

               ORDER :

               1.    Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

               2.    This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree

               dated 30th May, 2025 passed by the learned District Judge,

               Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No. 28/2023 whereby the appeal

               preferred by the appellants/original Defendant Nos. 2 and 3

               against the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 1520/2014

               dated 13th March, 2018, came to be dismissed.

               3.    The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – original plaintiffs

               instituted Special Civil Suit No. 1520/2014 seeking a declaration

               that, the development agreement dated 17th March, 2005

               executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the Defendant No. 1 in

               respect of the land bearing Survey No. 11/3 admeasuring 8R


               SAINATH, PA                      1/5
                                                      905 SA 536-25.DOC

situated at village Dhayari, Pune (the suit property) stood

cancelled and terminated and the plaintiffs were entitled to

recover possession of the suit property, on account of the breach

of the obligations thereunder by the Defendant No. 1 and the

fraudulent transfer of the interest in the suit property by the

Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 –

appellants herein.

4.    The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 contested the plaintiffs claim

and asserted that, the development agreement dated 24 th

October, 2007 was executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of

Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 with the consent of the plaintiffs.

However, the defendant did not adduce any evidence to bolster

up their defence.

5.    By a judgment and decree dated 13 th March, 2018, the

learned Civil Judge decreed the suit and declared that, the

development agreement and irrevocable power of attorney

executed by plaintiffs in favour of the Defendant No. 1 stood

cancelled, in view of the breach of the obligations by the

Defendant     No.    1   and,   consequently,   the     subsequent

development agreement dated 24th October, 2007, executed by

Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Defendant Nos. 2 ad 3 was null

and void ab initio and did not bind the rights of the plaintiffs in


SAINATH, PA                       2/5
                                                    905 SA 536-25.DOC

the suit property. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were also directed

to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs, and

restrained from creating further third party rights in the suit

property.

6.    Being aggrieved, the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 preferred

appeal before the District Court. By the impugned judgment

and decree, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal

Cnding no fault with the decree impugned before him.

7.    Mr. Ashotush Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the

appellants would submit that, there was a serious discrepancy

regarding the identiCcation of the property in respect of which,

the plaintiffs had allegedly executed a development agreement in

favour of the Defendant No. 1. The proceedings were initiated

before the Revenue Authorities. Thus, the appellants/Defendant

Nos. 2 and 3 had Cled an application for permission to adduce

additional evidence under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the impugned judgment,

the said application was also unjustiCably rejected by the

learned District Judge. Thus, a substantial question of law as to

whether the impugned decree could have been passed when the

identity of the suit property itself was shrouded in mystery

arises for consideration, submitted Mr. Kulkarni.


SAINATH, PA                      3/5
                                                    905 SA 536-25.DOC

8.    I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the aforesaid

submission. The nature of jural relationship between the parties

assumes material signiCcance. What was executed by the

plaintiffs in favour of the Defendant No. 1 was only a

development agreement. The title in the suit property did not

pass to the Defendant No. 1.

9.    Apart from the issue of breach of obligations on the part of

the Defendant No 1 as the payments were not made within the

stipulated period, the very competence of the Defendant No. 1 to

execute a further development agreement in favour of the

Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was itself in question. Though the

Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 claimed that, the plaintiffs had given

consent for the execution of the development agreement by the

Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, yet, no

evidence was led by the defendants to substantiate the said

defence. In fact, the plaintiffs claim had gone virtually

unimpeached.

10.   In the aforesaid backdrop, the submissions premised on

the purported discrepancy in the identity of the suit property do

not advance the cause of the Defendants No. 2 and 3.

11.   SufCce to note, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had no

antecedent right, title and interest in the suit property and the


SAINATH, PA                       4/5
                                                                            905 SA 536-25.DOC

                        Defendant No. 1 came in possession of the suit property under

                        the development agreement only. Therefore, no mileage can be

                        drawn from the purported discrepancy in the identiCcation of

                        the suit property. Thus, no question of law, much less a

                        substantial question of law, arises for consideration.

                        12.     The Second Appeal thus stands dismissed.

                        13.     In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the

                        IA/2531/2026 also stands disposed.




                                                                [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




Signed by: S.S.Phadke       SAINATH, PA                   5/5
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/04/2026 21:10:54