1 / 3 1-cas-1226-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO. 1226 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 4426 OF 2026 Anandibai Mahadeo Chilbule (dead) through LRs. Vs. Kamlabai Dnyaneshwar Katekhaye and ors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.U.A.Gosavi, counsel for the Applicants/Appellants. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATE : 21/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. The applicants have filed the present application seeking condonation of 25 days’ delay caused in filing the Second Appeal. Considering the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The delay of 25 days in filing the Second Appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Civil Application stands disposed of. SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 4426 OF 2026 1. Heard. 2. The appellant is the original defendant No.3 and the purchaser of the suit property. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration and possession. The appellant/defendant No.3, being the purchaser, filed a Kavita 2 / 3 1-cas-1226-26 counter-claim, which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court also decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the counter-claim as well as the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, the appellant/defendant No.3 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, upon consideration of the matter, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, the appellant/defendant No.3 has preferred the present appeal on the following proposed substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether or not the agreement entered into between the Appellant and defendant no.1 could have been made applicable to the undivided share of the defendant no.1 in the land bearing Bhumapa No.145 in the suit property? 2. Whether of not the appellant was entitled for refund of money? 3. Whether the learned trial court as well as the learned fist appellate court were justified in holding that the agreements executed between Appellant and Defendant No.1 are barred by limitation? Kavita 3 / 3 1-cas-1226-26 5. Issue notice to the respondents on the above mentioned proposed substantial questions of law, returnable on 06/10/2026. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1256 OF 2026. 1. The appellants have filed this application for stay of the execution proceedings. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that defendant No.3, who is the purchaser, is in possession of the property and that the matter is presently pending before the Executing Court for issuance of a possession warrant. 3. Considering the possibility of issuance of a possession warrant and the fact that the decree has been challenged before this Court, the proceedings in Regular Darkhast No.8 of 2025 pending before the Trial Court shall remain stayed until the next date of hearing. JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/09/2026 10:22:44