1 962 SA.504.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 962 SECOND APPEAL NO. 504 OF 2026 SHIVAJI GOVIND EKALE AND OTHERS VERSUS HANMANT MADHAVRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh. … WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10049 OF 2026 IN SA/504/2026 ... CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 03rd September, 2026. Per Court : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2 The learned Advocate for the appellants pointed out the impugned judgment and the judgment of the learned Trial Court. The findings of the learned Appellate Court in paragraph No. 13 are very clear and decisive, which reads as follows :- “13] It is further admitted by the defendant that the relations between father of defendant and the plaintiff’s father were very close. There were faithful relations between them and it is on that basis, the father of defendant No.1 used to look after all the affairs of the property of the plaintiff’s father. By virtue of such relationship, the said transaction is effected, that is what admitted by the defendant in his cross-examination. The 2026:BHC-AUG:41015 2 962 SA.504.2026.odt entire plea taken by the defendants nowhere shows that the plaintiff was of 40 years at the time of execution of sale deed but the plea taken is to the effect that the said sale deed is not challenged by the plaintiff within a period of limitation and the defendants have enjoyed the possession of the suit property for decades together without any objection of the plaintiff and therefore, under such circumstances, now the plaintiff is not entitled to get the reliefs in question. The manner & way in which plea is taken by the defendants in their written statement itself shows that they are not firm and confident to state that plaintiff was not minor but was major at the time of execution of sale deed in question.” 3 It is proved that the plaintiff / respondent was 13 years old when he sold the suit property. When fraud is practiced while executing sale-deed, the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court rightly held that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. If these two important findings as to the age and period of limitation are considered together, this Court is of the view that there is no substance in the grounds of objections raised in this second appeal. No any substantial question of law arises for determination. The second appeal is therefore, dismissed in limine. 4 Civil Application No.10049 of 2026 is also dismissed. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga