k 1/5 3 sa 770.16 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.770 OF 2016 Dattu Bhau Shinde since deceased through legal heirs Suman Dattatray Shinde deceased through legal representatives Rajendra Dattatray Shinde & Ors. ....Appellants V/S Sachin Ramchandra Taware deceased through his legal heirs Parth Sachin Taware & Ors. ....Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1523 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.770 OF 2016 Dattu Bhau Shinde since deceased through legal heirs Suman Dattatray Shinde deceased through legal representatives Rajendra Dattatray Shinde & Ors. ....Appellants V/S Sachin Ramchandra Taware deceased through his legal heirs Parth Sachin Taware & Ors. ....Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.765 OF 2016 Dattu Bhau Shinde since deceased through legal heirs Suman Dattatray Shinde deceased through legal representatives Rajendra Dattatray Shinde & Ors. ....Appellants V/S Sachin Ramchandra Taware deceased through his legal heirs Parth Sachin Taware & Ors. ....Respondents katkam Page No. 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AS:38565 k 2/5 3 sa 770.16 as.doc WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1505 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.765 OF 2016 Dattu Bhau Shinde since deceased through legal heirs Suman Dattatray Shinde deceased through legal representatives Rajendra Dattatray Shinde & Ors. ....Appellants V/S Sachin Ramchandra Taware deceased through his legal heirs Parth Sachin Taware & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Nishant Tripathi with Mr. Amey Sawant, Ms. Neha Parte, Mr. Pratik Sabrad, Ms. Eshwaree Kudalkar i/b Mr. Suresh Sabrad for the Appellant. Mr. Siddharth C. Wakankar for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 21 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1. These Appeals are filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 23 November 2015 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Baramati, dismissing Appellants’ Regular Civil Appeal No.101 of 2012 and allowing Regular Civil Appeal No.102 of 2012 filed by Defendant Nos.1 to 4. 2. I have heard Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for Appellants and Mr. Wakankar, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. katkam Page No. 2 of 5 k 3/5 3 sa 770.16 as.doc 3. Plaintiff and Defendant No.5 are real brothers. They believed that the suit property bearing Gat No.570, Survey No.1020, admeasuring 6 H 52 R at village Malegaon (Bk), Taluka Baramati was in their exclusive ownership and possession. It is the case of Plaintiff that he intended to sell only land admeasuring 6 acres and accordingly executed an Agreement for Sale dated 6 July 1992. It appears that the fresh agreement in respect of 2 more acres was executed between the parties. This is how the Plaintiff admits that he intended to sell land admeasuring 8 acres to Defendant Nos.1 to 4. However, by Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996, the entire suit land was shown to have been sold in favour of Defendant Nos.1 to 4. Plaintiff therefore filed Special Civil Suit No.168 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Baramati seeking a declaration that Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996 was a nullity. 4. In the Suit so filed, the brother of Plaintiff-Dadu Aganu Shinde was impleaded as Defendant No.5. In that Suit, Smt. Anusaya Rau Malawe sought an entry and impleadment contending that suit property was granted by way of a Sanad in favour of Plaintiff’s father and Defendant No.2’s husband Rau and that therefore Defendant No.2- Anusaya had 50% share in the suit property. Her application was allowed and Anusaya came to be impleaded as Plaintiff No.2 in the Suit. The original Plaintiff did not challenge order impleading Anusaya as Plaintiff No.2 and prosecuted the suit jointly with Anusaya. At the end of the trial it was found that Rau indeed was 50% owner in respect of the land and therefore Anusaya became 50% owner of the suit property. The Trial katkam Page No. 3 of 5 k 4/5 3 sa 770.16 as.doc Court therefore has declared that the Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996 was not binding on the share of Plaintiff No.2-Anusaya. So far as the claim of original Plaintiff is concerned, the Trial Court negatived the same by not accepting the theory of force and coercion. The Appellate Court has concurrently upheld the findings of the Trial Court. However, it appears that during pendency of the Appeal, Defendant Nos.1 to 4 compromised with Plaintiff No.2-Anusaya and accordingly Regular Civil Appeal No.102 of 2012 filed by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 challenging declaration made in favour of Plaintiff No.2-Anusaya was rendered infructuous. 5. Mr. Tripathi has contended that the Appellate Court has not properly decided the Appeals and has merely copied most of the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Mr. Tripathi is not entirely wrong in saying so and one can easily see mere copying of various findings of the Trial Court by the first Appellate Court. This ought to have been avoided. Being a Court of First Appeal, it is the duty of the District Court to marshal the evidence and to examine an element of perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Merely copying of findings recorded by the Trial Court is not the correct way of deciding the First Appeal by the District Court. However, in the present case, mere factum of copying of some of the findings of Trial Court by the First Appellate Court is not a reason enough to interfere in the decree made by the District Court. Logically seen, Plaintiff’s case of force and coercion in the matter of execution of Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996 was demolished the moment its was established that Plaintiff No.2-Anusaya was 50% owner katkam Page No. 4 of 5 k 5/5 3 sa 770.16 as.doc in the suit property. The original Plaintiff himself admitted that he did intend to sell 8 acres of land to Defendant Nos.1 to 4. Original Plaintiff’s share in the suit property is only to the extent of 8 acres. Therefore, even if it is assumed that there was any misrepresentation on the part of Defendant Nos.1 to 4 in getting Sale Deed in respect of the entire suit property executed from original Plaintiff and Defendant No.5, the same would reflect upon the share of Plaintiff No.2-Anusaya. The so called force or coercion would not affect execution of sale deed by original Plaintiff and Defendant No.5 qua land admeasuring 8 acres in favour of Defendant Nos.1 to 4. To make the case of original Plaintiff worse, his brother (Defendant No.5) did not support him. He admitted validity of the Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996. Even otherwise beyond vaguely pleading force and coercion, original Plaintiff failed to prove that the Sale Deed dated 21 November 1996 was really marred by any force or coercion as alleged. 6. Considering the above position, in my view, no substantial question of law is involved in any of the two Appeals. Second Appeals are accordingly disposed of. 7. In view of disposal of the Second Appeals, nothing would survive in the Civil Applications and the same are also accordingly disposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 5 of 5 Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/09/2026 11:09:29