Vaishnavi 8SA-382-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2032 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2017 Shri. Gopal Rajaram Bodake and Anr. ...Appellants V/s. Shri. Bhika Bhiwa Bodake and Anr. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Rahul D. Motkari, for Appellant. Ms. Siddhi Dawne i/b Mr. Rameshwar Gite, for Respondent No. 1. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 14 AUGUST 2026 P.C.: 1) By this Appeal, the Appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 18 February 2015 passed by District Judge, Nashik, dismissing Civil Appeal No. 224 of 2011 and confirming the decree dated 29 August 2011 passed by Civil judge, Senior Division, Nashik. The Trial Court has dismissed Special Civil Suit No. 225 of 2008 filed by Plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the Suit property. Page No. 1 of 3 14 August 2026 Vaishnavi 8SA-382-2017 2) I have heard Mr. Motkari, the learned counsel appearing for Appellants and Mr. Dawne, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1. 3) Appellants were Plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 255 of 2008. Appellants and Defendant No. 2 are real brothers. Defendant No. 1 in the suit is their uncle. Father of Defendant No. 1 executed a Sale Deed dated 6 July 1979 conveying the Suit property in favour of the two Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 2. The Defendant No. 1 instituted RCS. No. 198 of 1982 seeking partition and declaration that Sale Deed dated 6 July 1979 executed by his father was not binding on his share. A compromise took place in RCS No. 198 of 1982 and compromise pursis was filed, on the basis of which consent decree was passed on 10 July 1984, under which Defendant No. 2 apparently gave away the Suit property to Defendant No. 1. It is the case of Plaintiffs that Plaintiff No. 1 was major, but his signature was not taken on consent decree and that, the Plaintiff No. 2 was minor. Based of consent decree, a mutation entry was effected recording name of Defendant No. 1 against the Suit property. 4) Plaintiffs apparently maintained silence for over 24 years and woke out of their deep slumber in the year 2008 and filed Special Civil Suit No. 225 of 2008 on 11 April 2008 against their own brother (Defendant No. 2) and against Defendant No. 1. The Suit was hopelessly time-barred. The real remedy for the Plaintiffs was to seek reopening of RCS No. 198 of 1982 by seeking cancellation of the consent decree. A fresh Suit was clearly not maintainable. The Suit was filed only for the purpose of recovery possession of the property from Defendant No. 1. Page No. 2 of 3 14 August 2026 Vaishnavi 8SA-382-2017 5) The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings on the issue of absence of ownership in favour of the Plaintiffs as well as the Suit being barred by limitation. No substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal. 6) The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. With dismissal of the Appeal nothing survives in Civil Application No. 2032 of 2015, which is also disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 14 August 2026