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 2026:BHC-AS:37344 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 प्रतितवादीं विवरुध्द माझी कोणतीही वैयक्तीक मागणी नाही. आईला आधार हवा यासाठी मी वादी क्र. २ म्हणून साविमल 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 अशि/क्षीत आहे व जोडीला कोणीतरी पाविहजे 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 Page No. 3 of 3 Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 10/09/2026 14:54:39