In a tense hearing at the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on 4 October 2025, Justice Shailesh P. Brahme dismissed an appeal filed by Deelipkumar Sagarmal Saboo against his younger brother Ramavtar. The dispute, over a jointly purchased property in Aurangabad, has been simmering for years. The bench’s decision means the trial court will now fully hear Ramavtar’s suit for partition, possession and injunction, despite Deelipkumar’s argument that a registered gift deed already transferred the property to him.
Background
Both brothers had jointly purchased a house at Tilak Peth, Aurangabad in 2008. In 2014, Ramavtar signed a registered document transferring the property to Deelipkumar. Later, a correction deed followed in 2015. Ramavtar says he only agreed because Deelipkumar told him the transfer was “nominal” to help secure a bank loan. When no loan appeared and Deelipkumar refused to re-transfer the house, Ramavtar accused his elder brother of fraud.
Read also: Tripura High Court slams Railways for delay in land compensation, dismisses revision plea with costs
By 2019, Ramavtar had filed a civil suit for partition, possession and injunction. Deelipkumar, the original defendant, applied for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code - essentially asking the court to throw out the case at the threshold. The trial court initially rejected the plaint, but the appellate court reversed that decision in 2021. Deelipkumar’s present appeal challenged that reversal.
Court’s Observations
Justice Brahme examined the pleadings in detail. “A meaningful reading of the plaint discloses that there was a cause of action,” the bench observed. Even though Ramavtar is educated and signed a registered deed, the court noted it could not at this stage decide whether he truly understood the nature of the transfer.
Read also: Tripura High Court Orders HSCL to Pay Rs.1.26 Crore to Contractor for Arbitrary Contract Termination
The court also highlighted that Ramavtar had alleged misrepresentation and fraud. If those claims are proved at trial, they could vitiate the gift deed. The judge stressed that “merely because registered instruments were executed cannot dislodge the probable theory of the respondent-plaintiff at this stage.”
On limitation (the time bar for filing cases), the bench said it was a mixed question of law and fact. Article 59 of the Limitation Act would apply only once the aggrieved party became aware of the fraud. The 2017 memorandum of understanding between the brothers, which promised re-transfer of the property, lent credibility to Ramavtar’s version.
Read also: Meghalaya High Court Upholds Old Pension Rights for Junior Divisional Accountants, Rejects State
Decision
Concluding the 30-page judgment, Justice Brahme held there was no legal bar to entertaining the suit and no “perversity or illegality” in the lower appellate court’s order. The court dismissed Deelipkumar’s appeal from order, effectively clearing the way for the trial court to hold a full-fledged trial on whether the 2014 gift deed was genuine or procured by fraud. The pending civil application was also disposed of.
Case: Deelipkumar Sagarmal Saboo vs. Ramavtar Sagarmal Saboo
Case Numbers: Appeal from Order No. 40 of 2021 with Civil Application No. 2529 of 2023
Appellant: Deelipkumar Sagarmal Saboo, Age 60, Businessman, Aurangabad
Respondent: Ramavtar Sagarmal Saboo, Age 54, Businessman, Aurangabad
Date of Judgment: Pronounced on 4 October 2025 (Reserved on 25 September 2025)
