5-SA219-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3908 OF 2026 Amar Narsing Kadam ...Appellant Versus Shekhar Narsing Kadam and Ors. …Respondents Mr. Laxman S. Deshmukh, for the Appellant. Mr. Pradeep Thorat, a/w Akash Pandey, Rushikesh Kekane, Aneish Jadhav, for Respondent No.7. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER:- 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 29th August, 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Indapur, whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintff against a judgment and decree dated 30th January, 2017 passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014 came to be dismissed. 2. By the said decree in Special Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014, the trial Court had partly decreed the suit instituted by the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties, except the property described 1/6 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.19 14:22:50 +0530 5-SA219-2026.DOC in paragraph 1A of the plaint, i.e. Block No. 81, admeasuring 93 Are, situated at Hingnewadi, Indapur, ("the subject property"). 3. The subject property was acquired under a registered Sale Deed executed in favour of Subhadra (D2), the wife of Narsing (D5), and mother of plaintiff, Shekhar (D1), Swapnali (D3), and Sarika (D4) on 29th May, 1995. Subhadra (D2) purportedly transferred the said subject property in favor of Shekhar (D1) by filing an application before the revenue authorities. Accordingly, the suit property came to be mutated in the name of Shekhar (D1). 4. The plaintiff asserted that, the subject property was nominally purchased in the name of Subhadra (D2) by her husband Narsing (D5), as the Sale Deed records that the entire consideration was paid by Narsing. Thus, it was a joint family property. 5. Subsequently, for legal necessity, the subject property was sold by Shekhar (D1) in favour of Mr. Nimbalkar. However, the subject property was repurchased in the name of Shekhar (D1) out of the joint family funds. Later on, Shekhar (D1) sold the subject property in favour of Sampat (D6) under a registered Sale Deed dated 25th July, 2012. Sampat (D6), in turn, sold the subject property in favor of Sachin (D7) under a registered Sale 2/6 5-SA219-2026.DOC Deed dated 26th May, 2014. Therefore, the subject property continued to retain the character of joint family property. 6. The Courts below were of the view that in view of the provisions contained in section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Subhadra (D2) became the absolute owner of the property, and, even otherwise, the plaintiff failed to establish that the subject property remained a joint family property after it was repurchased by Shekhar (D1). 7. Mr. Laxman Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Courts below erred in appreciating the character of the subject property. Banking upon the Sale Deed under which the consideration of Rs.1,15,000/- was paid by Narsing (D5), on behalf of Subhadra (D2), Mr. Deshmukh would urge that that Subhadra (D2) cannot be said to have become absolute owner of the subject property. Likewise, when the subject property was repurchased by Shekhar (D1) under the Sale Deed dated 8th May, 2000, Shekhar (D1), then being a 20-year old boy, had no independent income and, thus, the re-acquisition of the subject property was for the joint family and out of joint family funds. Moreover, the defendant No. 1 categorically admitted in the pleadings that the subject property continued to retain the character of joint family 3/6 5-SA219-2026.DOC property. Thus, the appeal merits admission on the substantial question of law as to whether the Courts below misconstrued the evidence in returning the finding that the subject property was not the joint family property. 8. Mr. Pradeep Thorat, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 7, submitted that a collusive suit was instituted after 18 years of the initial transfer of the subject property by Shekhar (D1) in favor of Mr. Nimbalkar. The Courts below were fully justified in holding that Subhadra (D1) became the absolute owner of the subject property. At any rate, there is no evidence to show that the subject property was repurchased by Shekhar (D1) out of the joint family funds. 9. In view of the provisions contained in section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which have been construed in an expansive and comprehensive manner, any property acquired by a female Hindu becomes her absolute property, unless the acquisition is of the nature governed by sub-section (2) of Section 14. The Explanation to section 14(1) expands the scope of sub-section (1) of Section 14. In particular, the expression, “in any other manner whatsoever” emphasises that de hors the manner of the acquisition of property, the female Hindu becomes its absolute and unqualified holder. In the case at 4/6 5-SA219-2026.DOC hand, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the acquisition was covered by sub-section (2) of Section 14. The Courts below were thus justified in holding that the case was covered by sub- section (1) of Section 14 and not by sub-section (2) thereof. 10. The dealings with the subject property by Shekhar (D1) after the subject property came to be mutated in his name also assume significance. It was the case of the plaintiff that the subject property was sold in the year 1998 to Mr. Nimbalkar for a legal necessity. Nothing could be brought on record to substantiate the case that the subsequent repurchase of the subject property by Shekhar (D1) in the year 2000 was for and on behalf of the joint family and out of joint family funds. The admission on behalf of Shekhar (D1) as regards the character of the subject property after execution of the Sale Deed in favour of Sampat (D6) and the further sale by Sampat (D6) in favour of Sachi (D7), does not command any value as those pleadings were of self-serving nature. 11. The situation which thus obtains is that, in the first place, Subhadra (D1) became the absolute owner of the subject property and, even if it is assumed that, the subject property retained the character of a joint family property in the hands of Shekhar (D1) and was sold for the legal necessity, yet, the 5/6 5-SA219-2026.DOC plaintiff failed to lead any credible evidence to prove that the repurchase of the subject property by Shekhar (D1) was from and out of joint family funds. The Courts below have thus correctly appreciated the evidence and have arrived at justifiable findings of facts. Such findings of facts are not open for interference in a second appeal. 12. Resultantly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 13. The appeal stands dismissed. 14. In view of dismissal of the appeal, IA/3908/2026 also stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 6/6