Bombay High Court
DAJlRAM SABAJI BAGALversusGOPINATH SAKHARAM POKHARKAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The plaintiffs, being agnates, have the better right of succession and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellants, heirs of Dajiram Sabaji Bagal, appealed a decree that declared the plaintiffs, first cousins of the deceased Jagannath, as owners of a suit property. The dispute centered on whether the property, purchased in Jagannath's name, was a self‑acquired asset or acquired from the joint family, and consequently which relatives—agnates (plaintiffs) or cognates (defendants)—had the superior right of succession under the Hindu Succession Act. The trial court held the plaintiffs were agnates and, applying Section 8(c) of the Hindu Succession Act, gave them priority over the cognate defendants. The defendants attempted to prove they were the actual purchasers but failed to produce any evidence, leaving the burden of proof on them. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s findings, noting no substantial question of law and that the plaintiffs’ succession right prevailed. Accordingly, the second appeal and the pending interim stay application were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the plaintiffs, as agnates, have a superior right of succession over the defendants, who are cognates, under Section 8(c) of the Hindu Succession Act.
- Whether the burden of proof to establish ownership of the suit property lies on the defendants who claim they purchased it in the name of the deceased.
Legislation cited
- Hindu Succession Act — s. 8(c)
Subjects
- succession
- Hindu Succession Act
- agnates
- cognates
- property ownership
- burden of proof
- second appeal
- civil procedure
Judgment
k 1/4 5 sa 644.24 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.644 OF 2024
Dajiram Sabaji Bagal
through his legal heirs
Vimal Dajiram Bagal & Ors. ....Appellants
V/S
Gopinath Sakharam Pokharkar & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10220 OF 2025
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.644 OF 2024
Dajiram Sabaji Bagal
through his legal heirs
Vimal Dajiram Bagal & Ors. ....Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Dajiram Sabaji Bagal
through his legal heirs
Vimal Dajiram Bagal & Ors. ....Appellants
V/S
Gopinath Sakharam Pokharkar & Ors. ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Shreepad Murthy i/b Mr. Abhishek Patil for the Appellants/
Applicants.
Mr. Samir Suryawanshi for Respondents.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 05 OCTOBER 2026.
P.C.:
1. This Appeal challenges judgment and order dated 23 October 2023
passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-1, Khed-Rajgurunagar,
katkam Page No. 1 of 4
k 2/4 5 sa 644.24 as.doc
District Pune, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 2021 and
confirming the Trial Court's decree dated 1 October 2019. The Trial Court
had decreed the Plaintiffs' suit by declaring Plaintiffs as owners of the
suit property and by directing the Defendants/Appellants to hand over
possession of the suit property to the Plaintiffs.
2. I have heard Mr. Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for
Appellants and Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondents. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel appearing for parties and I have gone through the
findings recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Courts.
3. The suit property stood in the name of deceased Jagannath. It was
purchased in the name of deceased Jagannath. Plaintiffs are the first
cousins of Jagannath, since father of Jagannath and that of Plaintiffs
were real brothers. On the other hand, Defendants are Jagannath's
father's sister's sons. The Trial Court has accordingly held that Plaintiffs
fall in the category of agnates, whereas Defendants fall in the category of
cognates. Applying provisions of Section 8(c) of the Hindu Succession
Act, the Trial Court has ruled that Plaintiffs' right of succession would
prevail over the right of the Defendants.
4. The Defendants also came out with a bizarre defence that they are
the real owners of the suit property since they paid the consideration for
purchase of the suit property in the name of Jagannath. Mr. Murthy
contends that Defendants' family looked after Jagannath after death of
katkam Page No. 2 of 4
k 3/4 5 sa 644.24 as.doc
his mother and that Jagannath never had any income to purchase the
suit property. He submits that Plaintiffs' case of acquisition of suit
property through joint family income is already negatived by the Trial
Court. Though the above defence was raised by the Defendants, they
thoroughly failed to prove the same. According to Mr. Murthy it is
Plaintiffs' burden to prove valid acquisition of title in respect of the suit
property in the name of Jagannath. I am unable to agree. If Defendants
raise the defence of they being the real owners of the suit property
purchased in the name of Jagannath, the burden was on their shoulders
to prove the same. No cogent evidence is produced by the Defendants to
prove purchase of the suit property in the name of Jagannath by paying
consideration by the Defendants.
5. Even though Plaintiffs failed to prove that suit property was
acquired by Jagannath through joint family income, the same would
mean that the suit property was self-acquired property of Jagannath.
Therefore, rejection of contention of acquisition of suit property through
joint family income does not really inure to the benefit of the
Defendants.
6. In the present case, it is fully established that Plaintiffs are the
agnates, whereas Defendants are cognates. Plaintiffs have better right to
succeed to the estate of Jagannath. There are concurrent findings
recorded by the Trial and the first Appellate Courts against the
Defendants/ Appellants. No substantial question of law is involved in the
present Appeal. There is no warrant for admission of the Appeal. The
Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
katkam Page No. 3 of 4
k 4/4 5 sa 644.24 as.doc
7. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, nothing would
survive in pending Interim Application for stay, and the same is
accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Page No. 4 of 4
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/10/2026 15:13:58
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.