1 / 3 1- cas 1106-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1106 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.20756 O F 2025 Kantabai Murlidhar Kale ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra and anr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.P.S. Gawai counsel h/f Mr. K.J.Tople, counsel for the applicant/Appellant. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29/08/2026 1. The applicant has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Second Appeal. There is a delay of 48 days in filing the appeal. The applicant/appellant has stated that the requisite Court fees payable on the appeal was Rs.10,300/- and that some time was required to arrange the said amount. Consequently, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period, resulting in a delay of 48 days. 2. Considering the reasons given in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 48 days caused in the filing of the Second Appeal is hereby condoned. Kavita 2 / 3 1- cas 1106-26 3. Registry to register the Appeal. 4. Civil application stands disposed of. SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.20756 OF 2025. 1. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He had filed the suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction, possession and cancellation of the sale deed. The said suit came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which also came to be dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant on the following proposed substantial questions of law:- a. Whether property obtained on partition from a paternal ancestor constitutes ancestral property under Mitakshara Hindu law, conferring a right by birth on descendants? b. Whether sale of class-ii occupancy land without prior sanction of the collector under section 57 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 is void-ab-initio, even when the purchaser is the State? c. Whether the Courts below erred in applying Article 59 of the limitation act, instead of Article 65/109, t a suit for cancellation of sale deed ο relating to ancestral/coparcenary property? Kavita 3 / 3 1- cas 1106-26 2. Issue notice to the respondents on the above mentioned substantial questions of law, returnable on 21/09/2026. 3. Learned AGP waives the service of notice for the respondents. JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 29/08/2026 15:20:15