SHRI AMAR NARSING KADAMversusSHRI. SHEKHAR NARSING KADAM

                                                                         5-SA219-2026.DOC

                                                                                  Santosh

                             IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                      SECOND APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2026
                                                  WITH
                                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3908 OF 2026

                      Amar Narsing Kadam                                    ...Appellant
                                       Versus
                      Shekhar Narsing Kadam and Ors.                    …Respondents

                      Mr. Laxman S. Deshmukh, for the Appellant.
                      Mr. Pradeep Thorat, a/w Akash Pandey, Rushikesh Kekane,
SANTOSH                     Aneish Jadhav, for Respondent No.7.
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
                                                   CORAM:     N. J. JAMADAR, J.
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.19
14:22:50 +0530
                                                   DATED:     16th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                      ORDER:-

                      1.   This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree

                      dated 29th August, 2025 passed by the learned District Judge,

                      Indapur, whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintff

                      against a judgment and decree dated 30th January, 2017 passed

                      by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014 came to be

                      dismissed.


                      2.   By the said decree in Special Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014, the

                      trial Court had partly decreed the suit instituted by the plaintiff

                      in respect of the suit properties, except the property described




                                                     1/6
                                                   5-SA219-2026.DOC

in paragraph 1A of the plaint, i.e. Block No. 81, admeasuring 93

Are, situated at Hingnewadi, Indapur, ("the subject property").


3.      The subject property was acquired under a registered Sale

Deed executed in favour of Subhadra (D2), the wife of Narsing

(D5), and mother of plaintiff, Shekhar (D1), Swapnali (D3), and

Sarika (D4) on 29th May, 1995. Subhadra (D2) purportedly

transferred the said subject property in favor of Shekhar (D1) by

filing an application before the revenue authorities. Accordingly,

the suit property came to be mutated in the name of Shekhar

(D1).


4.      The plaintiff asserted that, the subject property was

nominally purchased in the name of Subhadra (D2) by her

husband Narsing (D5), as the Sale Deed records that the entire

consideration was paid by Narsing. Thus, it was a joint family

property.


5.      Subsequently, for legal necessity, the subject property was

sold by Shekhar (D1) in favour of Mr. Nimbalkar. However, the

subject property was repurchased in the name of Shekhar (D1)

out of the joint family funds. Later on, Shekhar (D1) sold the

subject property in favour of Sampat (D6) under a registered

Sale Deed dated 25th July, 2012. Sampat (D6), in turn, sold the

subject property in favor of Sachin (D7) under a registered Sale
                                2/6
                                                     5-SA219-2026.DOC

Deed dated 26th      May, 2014. Therefore, the subject property

continued to retain the character of joint family property.


6.     The Courts below were of the view that in view of the

provisions contained in section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession

Act, 1956, Subhadra (D2) became the absolute owner of the

property, and, even otherwise, the plaintiff failed to establish

that the subject property remained a joint family property after

it was repurchased by Shekhar (D1).


7.     Mr. Laxman Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the

appellant,    submitted     that   the   Courts    below   erred   in

appreciating the character of the subject property. Banking

upon    the   Sale   Deed   under    which   the   consideration   of

Rs.1,15,000/- was paid by Narsing (D5), on behalf of Subhadra

(D2), Mr. Deshmukh would urge that that Subhadra (D2) cannot

be said to have become absolute owner of the subject property.

Likewise, when the subject property was repurchased by

Shekhar (D1) under the Sale Deed dated 8th May, 2000, Shekhar

(D1), then being a 20-year old boy, had no independent income

and, thus, the re-acquisition of the subject property was for the

joint family and out of joint family funds. Moreover, the

defendant No. 1 categorically admitted in the pleadings that the

subject property continued to retain the character of joint family

                                   3/6
                                                    5-SA219-2026.DOC

property. Thus, the appeal merits admission on the substantial

question of law as to whether the Courts below misconstrued

the evidence in returning the finding that the subject property

was not the joint family property.


8.   Mr. Pradeep Thorat, the learned Counsel for respondent

No. 7, submitted that a collusive suit was instituted after 18

years of the initial transfer of the subject property by Shekhar

(D1) in favor of Mr. Nimbalkar. The Courts below were fully

justified in holding that Subhadra (D1) became the absolute

owner of the subject property. At any rate, there is no evidence

to show that the subject property was repurchased by Shekhar

(D1) out of the joint family funds.


9.   In view of the provisions contained in section 14(1) of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which have been construed in an

expansive and comprehensive manner, any property acquired by

a female Hindu becomes her absolute property, unless the

acquisition is of the nature governed by sub-section (2) of

Section 14. The Explanation to section 14(1) expands the scope

of sub-section (1) of Section 14. In particular, the expression, “in

any other manner whatsoever” emphasises that de hors the

manner of the acquisition of property, the female Hindu

becomes its absolute and unqualified holder. In the case at

                                4/6
                                                   5-SA219-2026.DOC

hand, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the acquisition was

covered by sub-section (2) of    Section 14.   The Courts below

were thus justified in holding that the case was covered by sub-

section (1) of Section 14 and not by sub-section (2) thereof.


10.   The dealings with the subject property by Shekhar (D1)

after the subject property came to be mutated in his name also

assume significance. It was the case of the plaintiff that the

subject property was sold in the year 1998 to Mr. Nimbalkar for

a legal necessity. Nothing could be brought on record to

substantiate the case that the subsequent repurchase of the

subject property by Shekhar (D1) in the year 2000 was for and

on behalf of the joint family and out of joint family funds. The

admission on behalf of Shekhar (D1) as regards the character of

the subject property after execution of the Sale Deed in favour of

Sampat (D6) and the further sale by Sampat (D6) in favour of

Sachi (D7), does not command any value as those pleadings

were of self-serving nature.


11.   The situation which thus obtains is that, in the first place,

Subhadra (D1) became the absolute owner of the subject

property and, even if it is assumed that, the subject property

retained the character of a joint family property in the hands of

Shekhar (D1) and was sold for the legal necessity, yet, the

                                5/6
                                                  5-SA219-2026.DOC

plaintiff failed to lead any credible evidence to prove that the

repurchase of the subject property by Shekhar (D1) was from

and out of joint family funds.       The Courts below have thus

correctly appreciated the evidence and have arrived at justifiable

findings of facts. Such findings of facts are not open for

interference in a second appeal.


12.   Resultantly, no substantial question of law arises for

consideration.


13.   The appeal stands dismissed.


14.   In view of dismissal of the appeal, IA/3908/2026 also

stands disposed.


                                          [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               6/6