The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on 4 October 2025 set aside a 1999 district court ruling in a long-running family property dispute from Hingoli district. Justice Shailesh P. Brahme quashed the Additional District Judge’s order which had declared a disputed piece of farmland as joint family property, restoring instead the original trial court’s finding that the land belonged solely to the late Gyanu Jadhav and validating sale deeds executed by his widow.
Background
The case stems from a 1976 suit (R.C.S. No. 112/1976) over multiple family properties including agricultural lands and a house in Kadati village. While most properties were accepted as joint family assets, the flashpoint remained Survey No. 47 - a 24-acre tract purchased in 1952 in Gyanu’s name. After Gyanu died childless in 1960, his widow Subhadrabai sold parts of this land in 1971 and 1976 to various relatives, prompting other family members to seek partition and challenge the sales.
Read also: Tripura High Court slams Railways for delay in land compensation, dismisses revision plea with costs
Both the trial court in 1985 and the appellate court in 1999 gave opposite findings. The trial court had upheld Subhadrabai’s rights, but the appellate judge called it joint family property and awarded shares to the plaintiffs, including Kundlik Maroti Jadhav and others.
Court’s Observations
Justice Brahme went into the genealogy of the Jadhav family, the timing of marriages and remarriages, and the finances of the 1952 purchase. He noted that although the plaintiffs claimed there was a “joint family nucleus” of 37–40 acres, the revenue records and mutation entries showed the land had been bought in Gyanu’s name alone.
Read also: Tripura High Court Orders HSCL to Pay Rs.1.26 Crore to Contractor for Arbitrary Contract Termination
The bench also addressed the controversial inclusion of Geetabai, Gyanu’s second wife, in the partition. “The submission of the appellants is that on remarriage, Geetabai ceases to be member of the earlier husband’s family. She is deemed to be dead,” Justice Brahme recorded, citing Supreme Court precedents and the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act of 1856. Accepting that argument, he held that Geetabai had no share in Sy. No. 47.
Crucially, the judge stressed that Subhadrabai herself had been “illegally excluded” from sharing in the joint family properties, pointing out that if Geetabai was allotted a share, “then definitely Subhadrabai is also entitled” - but only in joint properties, not in land exclusively owned by Gyanu.
Read also: Meghalaya High Court Upholds Old Pension Rights for Junior Divisional Accountants, Rejects State
Decision
In a detailed 25-clause judgment, Justice Brahme overturned the lower appellate court’s 1999 decree. He restored the trial court’s 1985 ruling, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim over Survey No. 47 and validating the two sale deeds executed by Subhadrabai in 1971 and 1976. “The substantial questions of law are answered in the negative,” the bench held.
Accordingly, the High Court ordered:
- The Additional District Judge’s judgment dated 4 March 1999 is quashed.
- The trial court’s judgment dated 28 February 1985 is confirmed.
- The suit stands dismissed as regards Survey No. 47, and the sale deeds at Exhibits 89 and 91 are declared legal and valid.
The decree will now be drawn up accordingly, effectively ending nearly five decades of litigation over this specific land.
Case:Tukaram H. Jadhav (Deceased) through LRs Ananda & Others vs. Kundlik Maroti Jadhav & Others
Case Number: Second Appeal No. 821 of 1999
Date of Judgment: 04 October 2025
