Bombay High Court
BALASHEB SHANKAR BHANDAREversusHARISHCHANDRA SHANKAR BHANDARE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant lacked locus standi and no substantial question of law was raised.
Summary
The appellant, Balasaheb Shankar Bhandare, was Plaintiff No.2 in a 2015 suit filed by his mother seeking cancellation of a sale deed. He had expressly admitted before the trial court that he had no personal interest in the suit property and was merely supporting his mother. Despite this, he appealed the trial court's dismissal, now claiming ownership of the property and alleging a benami transaction. The High Court held that his prior admission barred him from having locus standi to challenge the decree and that no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the second appeal and the related interim application were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether Plaintiff No.2 had locus standi to file an appeal despite his admission of no personal interest in the suit property.
- Whether the appellate court can entertain an appeal when the appellant changes his position to claim ownership of the property.
- Whether any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.
Subjects
- locus standi
- standing
- civil appeal
- benami transaction
- property dispute
- appellate jurisdiction
- specific admission
- procedural law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:37344
k 1/3 5 sa 243.25 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.243 OF 2025
Balasaheb Shankar Bhandare ....Appellant
V/S
Harishchandra Shankar Bhandare & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1877 OF 2025
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.243 OF 2025
Balasaheb Shankar Bhandare ....Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Balasaheb Shankar Bhandare ....Appellant
V/S
Harishchandra Shankar Bhandare & Ors. ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Sanjeev A. Sawant i/b Mr. Heramb Kadam for the Appellant/
Applicant.
Mr. Bhushan U. Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 9 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1. The Appeal is filed challenging the decree of District Judge-1,
Niphad, dated 21 November 2024, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.45
of 2020 and confirming the Trial Court's decree dated 1st July 2020
passed in Special Civil Suit No.89 of 2015.
2. Appellant was Plaintiff No. 2 in Special Civil Suit No.89 of 2015.
The suit was essentially instituted by mother Saraswatibai. She was the
owner of the suit property and had executed a sale deed in favour of her
four children, Defendant Nos.1 to 4. She sought cancellation of the sale
katkam Page No. 1 of 3
k 2/3 5 sa 243.25 as.doc
deed inter alia on the ground that she did not receive any consideration
for execution of the sale deed. Appellant/Plaintiff No.2 is also a son of
Plaintiff No.1-Saraswatibai. However, he had no concern with the suit
property. He was taken onboard by the mother because she was illiterate.
Appellant/Plaintiff No.2 gave a specific admission before the Trial Court
that he did not have any personal demand against Defendant Nos.1 to 4
and had joined the mother in the suit only for giving her support. Even
mother deposed so during the course of her evidence. The suit was,
however, dismissed on 1 July 2020. The mother was alive when the suit
was dismissed. The mother apparently was happy with the dismissal of
her suit and did not want to challenge the decree of the Trial Court. Only
Appellant/Plaintiff No.2 felt aggrieved by the Trial Court's decree and
filed Regular Civil Appeal No.45 of 2020. While the Appellant took a
position before the Trial Court that he had no personal interest in the
suit against the Defendants and that he had joined the mother in the suit
only for giving her support, he took a volte face before the Appellate
Court and pleaded that he is the real owner in respect of the suit
property and that the suit property was purchased by him in the name of
the mother.
3. Considering the specific admissions given before the Trial Court
regarding the absence of any personal interest in the suit property
against the Defendants, the Plaintiff No. 2/Appellant had no locus to file
an Appeal challenging the order of the Trial Court. This is correctly
captured by the Lower Appellate Court in paragraph 15 of the judgment
which reads thus:
katkam Page No. 2 of 3
k 3/3 5 sa 243.25 as.doc
“15. Further, it appears from the conduct and evidence of appellant
Balasaheb in the trial court clearly shows that he was not contesting party,
interested in the subject matter. The defendants examined him as their
witness at Exh.132. In the examination-in-chief Balsaheb categorically stated
that he has no individual demand against defendants in the suit. He is
included in the suit as plaintiff no.2 just to give support to his mother (प्रस्तुत
दाव्यात प्रतिवादीं विरुध्द माझी कोणतीही वैयक्तीक मागणी नाही. आईला आधार हवा यासाठी मी वादी
क्र.२ म्हणून सामिल झलो आहे.) Balasaheb has not uttered any word that the suit
property is purchased by him in the name of his mother. On the contrary, he
deposed that he completed Diploma in Electrical Engineering in the year 1977
from VJIT and thereafter, he served in five companies till the year 2000. He
also deposed that he was owner of Gat No.143/5 situated at Sonewadi and has
sold the same before 10 years. Deceased plaintiff no.1 Saraswatibai also stated
in her cross-examination that "या दाव्यामध्ये माझ्यासोबत बाळासाहेबाला घेण्याचे कारण मी
अशिक्षीत आहे व जोडीला कोणीतरी पाहिजे म्हणून घेतले आहे." This statement also supports
case of the defendants that Balasaheb has no right and interest in the suit
property.”
4. Plaintiff No.2/Appellant took a specific stand before the Trial
Court about the absence of any personal interest in the suit property and
he must stick to the stand taken by him. He cannot turn around before
the Appellate Court and claim ownership in the suit property by terming
the transaction in favor of the mother as a benami transaction.
5. Considering the above position, I find no reason to interfere with
the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Courts.
No substantial question of law is involved in the Appeal. The Second
Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
6. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, Interim Application
would not survive and the same is also accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Page No. 3 of 3
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/09/2026 14:54:39
Checking your session…