The Bombay High Court dismissed two second appeals filed by legal heirs of appellant, seeking partition and possession of ancestral property, citing an extraordinary delay of over 65 to 78 years in challenging the sale and gift deeds. Justice M.M. Sathaye, while pronouncing the verdict, observed that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and that the long inaction by the plaintiffs and their predecessor barred the suit under the Limitation Act.
The appellants had filed the suit in 2005, seeking a declaration that sale deeds executed in 1927 and 1932, and a gift deed from 1939, were not binding on their share. They claimed these transactions executed when the predecessors were minors were without consent and sought to assert rights in the properties allegedly held jointly by two family branches.
However, the Court noted that the appellant attained majority by 1932–33 but never took legal action during his lifetime and he died in 1991. Even under the Limitation Acts of 1908 and 1963, the permissible period for challenging such alienation had long lapsed. The Trial Court had failed to frame and consider the issue of limitation, which was later correctly addressed by the District Appellate Court, whose decision the High Court upheld.
The Court also took note of the plaintiffs’ admissions during cross-examination, including that they had no personal knowledge of events before 1945, that their father never challenged the sale or gift deeds, and that the properties had long been recorded in the names of the respondents or third parties, with no challenge to revenue entries or mutations over decades.
Highlighting that even if presumption of joint family could be made, joint family property must be proven, and such presumption weakens across generations. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in U.R. Virupakshappa v. Sarvamangala, (2009) 2 SCC 177 reinforcing that long separation and distinct possession rebut joint family claims.
Finding the appeal factually unsustainable and legally barred, the High Court dismissed both Second Appeals along with pending interim applications, and directed that parties act on the digitally signed copy of the order.
Appearances in the case:
SA/367/2025:
Appellants: Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte, Advocate for Appellants.
Respondent: Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar, Advocate for Respondent No.7. Mr. Vivek V. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No. 8.
 SA/374/2025:
Appellants: Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte, Advocate for Appellants.
Respondents: Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w. Mr Rahul Sarda, Mr. Avdhoot Prabhu i/b. Lex Services, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 To 3.
Mr. Ajay Singh a/w. Mr. Rahul Sarda i/b Lex Services, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6.
Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
Mr. Vivek Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No. 8
