Bombay High Court

Rajaram Sukhdeo VaidyaversusSau Baby Bhimraj Rahinj

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The Court held that there were no substantial questions of law remaining, as the appellant failed to prove the issues, and dismissed the second appeal.

Summary

The appellant, Rajaram Sukhdeo Vaidya, filed a suit seeking a declaration that a sale deed dated 21 September 1999 was null and void for being executed without consideration. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove the deed’s illegality. On second appeal, the appellant raised two questions of law: whether he became the absolute owner of the property by virtue of a will deed dated 13 November 1995, and whether the sale deed was illegal for lack of consideration. The High Court observed that these questions had already been fully considered and answered negatively by the lower courts, and that the appellant had not discharged the burden of proof. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the second appeal without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant became the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property by virtue of the will deed dated 13/11/1995 executed by Kondabai.
Whether the sale deed dated 21/09/1999 executed by Kondabai in favour of the respondent is illegal as being without consideration.

Subjects

declaration suit
sale deed
consideration
will deed
ownership
second appeal
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:25274

                                                                  1006-CA-3846-2026.doc


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                            1006 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3846 OF 2026
                                         IN SA/214/2026

                                       Rajaram Sukhdeo Vaidya
                                              VERSUS
                                         Baby Bhimraj Rahinj

                                             WITH
                                  SECOND APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2026

                                       Rajaram Sukhdeo Vaidya
                                              VERSUS
                                       Sau Baby Bhimraj Rahinj

                                                  ...
          Mr. Vikram Dhorde for Appellant.
                                                  ….

                                            CORAM :     SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                            DATE :      25 JUNE 2026

          P. C.:

          1.        Heard learned counsel for the Appellant.

          2.        By way of this Second Appeal, the Appellant-Original Plaintiff

          challenges the order dated 16th September 2009, passed by Ld. II Civil Judge

          Junior Division, Sangamner in Civil Suit No.453 of 1999 and order dated 8 th

          November 2024, passed by the Ld. District Judge -1,Sangamner Dist.

          Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.130 of 2009, whereby the Suit and

          the Appeal filed by present Appellant came to be dismissed.

          3.        Mr. Dhorde, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the

          Appellant/Original Plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration that the sale deed

          dated 21st September 1999 is null and void by contending that the same was

          Shubham                                                             Page 1 of 3
                                                         1006-CA-3846-2026.doc


obtained without consideration. He submits that both the Courts below have

erroneously observed that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the sale deed

was illegal as being without consideration. Therefore he submits that the

said issue needs to be reconsidered by this Court in the present Second

Appeal.

4.        He invited my attention to the proposed questions of law (VI) and

(VII) which read thus:-

          (VI) Whether the Appellant/Plaintiff became the absolute and
          exclusive owner of the suit property by virtue of will deed dated
          13/11/1995 executed by Kondabai in favour of the appellant.

          (VII) Whether the sale deed dated 21/09/1999 executed by
          Kondabai in favour of respondent/plaintiff is illegal as being
          without consideration.

5.        Having heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and upon going

through the proposed questions of law, I am of the opinion that the

proposed questions of law were already decided by the learned Trial Court

and the first Appellate Court in the form of issues/points for consideration

and were sufficiently answered by the Courts below. Both the Courts below

have answered the said issues in negative against the present Appellant. The

burden to prove the said issues was on the Appellant which he failed to

discharge. Therefore, I find that no substantial questions of law are involved

in the present Second Appeal. Hence, I pass the following order:-


Shubham                                                              Page 2 of 3
                                                         1006-CA-3846-2026.doc


                                        ORDER

          i.    The Second Appeal is dismissed.

          ii.   No order as to costs.


6.        In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, nothing survives in the

captioned Civil Application and the same is disposed of accordingly.



                                          [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]




Shubham                                                              Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…