Bombay High Court

ATMARAM SHANKAR GHANGAONversusNAMDEO PANDURANG DANDGE

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The appeal is dismissed in limine as there is no substantial question of law to be entertained.

Summary

The appellant, Atmaram Shankar Ghangaon, appealed against the judgment of the Principal District Judge which upheld a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, Krishna Pandharinath Dandge and Namdeo Pandurang Dandge, confirming their ownership of the suit land and restraining the defendant from obstructing possession. The appellant contended that Krishna Pandharinath Dandge lacked authority to sue on behalf of Namdeo Pandurang Dandge and that Namdeo was mentally ill and incapable of managing his affairs. The defendant relied on an alleged consent deed, claiming he was permitted to cultivate the land and that the deed was executed by a mentally ill plaintiff. Both lower courts rejected the defendant’s defence, finding the plaintiffs were the rightful owners and that the consent deed was fabricated. The High Court observed that the factual findings of the lower courts were concurrent and that no substantial question of law arose, leading to dismissal of the appeal in limine.

Issues considered

Whether Krishna Pandharinath Dandge had authority to institute suit on behalf of Namdeo Pandurang Dandge
Whether Namdeo Pandurang Dandge was mentally ill or legally incapable of managing his affairs
Whether the alleged consent deed executed by the plaintiff is valid and can affect possession
Whether any substantial question of law arises for the appellate court to consider

Subjects

authority to sue
mental incapacity
consent deed
possession
civil appeal
appeal dismissed
limine

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39047



                                                (1)                 974 sa 432.26

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              974 SECOND APPEAL NO. 432 OF 2026
                            WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9626 OF 2026

                                 ATMARAM SHANKAR GHANGAON
                                           VERSUS
                                  NAMDEO PANDURANG DANDGE

                                                 …..
                Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Ravi Raosaheb Bangar & Amol Ram Joshi
                                                 …..

                                          CORAM :     SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                          DATE :      27.08.2026

           Per Court:-

           1.            The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree

           dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Aurangabad,

           in Regular Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2021, whereby the judgment and decree

           dated 13.08.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.

           52 of 2012 came to be challenged.


           2.            Learned advocate for the appellant took this Court through the

           pleadings, evidence on record, grounds raised in the appeal, and the reasons

           recorded in the impugned judgment. He submitted that the plaintiff, Krishna

           Pandharinath Dandge, had no authority to institute the suit on behalf of

           Namdeo Pandurang Dandge. He further submitted that it was not proved that

           Namdeo Pandurang Dandge was mentally ill or legally incapable of managing
                                      (2)                   974 sa 432.26

his affairs. He pointed out that the Courts below held that the plaintiffs are

the owners of the suit property and restrained the defendant from causing

obstruction to their peaceful possession thereof.


3.          Upon perusal of both the judgments, and particularly the stand

taken by the defendant in paragraph 2 of the written statement, it appears

that the defendant himself admitted that Krishna Pandharinath Dandge, who

had instituted the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, had permitted the defendant

to cultivate the suit land and that a consent deed had been executed in that

regard. The defendant further contended that he had not fabricated any

document and that the names of the defendant were recorded by the Talathi

and the Tahsildar in the cultivation column. The defendant did not dispute the

title of the plaintiffs; rather, he disputed their possession and relied upon the

alleged consent deed.


4.          Upon perusal of the impugned judgments and the written

statement, it is evident that the defendant has taken an evasive defence based

upon the alleged consent deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff,

who, according to the defendant, was suffering from mental illness. There is a

clear and categorical finding recorded by both the Courts below against the

defendant in that regard.
                                     (3)                   974 sa 432.26

5.          In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts

below, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present

appeal. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed in limine.


6.          Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Civil Application No.

9626 of 2026 stands disposed of accordingly.



                                                [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.]




mubashir

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…