Baliram S/O Tulshiram Kakde vs Raghunath S/O Bhagwanji Hood
2016 Latest Caselaw 7172 Bom

     sast24279.14.J.odt                                                                                              1/2



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                             
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                               
                     SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO.24279 OF 2014
                      (REJ. SECOND APPEAL NO.472 OF 2016)

               Baliram s/o Tulshiram Kakde
               Aged about 50 years,




                                                                              
               Occ: Service, R/o Kanhan,
               Tahsil Paraseoni,
               District Nagpur.                                                 ....... APPELLANT




                                                           
                                               ...V E R S U S...
                                  
              Raghunath s/o Bhagwanji Hood,
              Aged about 54 years,
              Occ: Service, R/o Tekadi,
                                 
              Tahsil Paraseoni,
              District Nagpur.                                   ....... RESPONDENT
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shri S.G. Karmarkar, Advocate for Appellant.
      

              None for Respondent.
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   



                          CORAM:  R.K. DESHPANDE, J. 

th DECEMBER, 2016.

                          DATE:      13





     ORAL JUDGMENT



     1]                   Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits





     of the matter.



     2]                   The   deecree   for   specific   performance   of   contract

passed by the trial Court which is confirmed in appeal, the stand

of the appellant-original defendant was that he signed on the

sast24279.14.J.odt 2/2

blank stamp papers which were used for writing the agreement.

The total consideration for sale of property was of Rs.50,000/-

under the agreement dated 25.01.1994 at Exhibit-20. An amount

of Rs.7,000/- was paid and the balance consideration was

required to be paid at the time of execution of sale-deed dated

01.10.1994. The defendant refused to execute the sale-deed and

hence, the suit was filed. Both the Courts have held that there is

absolutely no evidence brought on record to establish that it was a

money lending transaction. The property was purchased by the

defendant in the year 1987 for the consideration of Rs.40,000/-

and he agreed to sale the property for Rs.50,000/- in the year

1994. In the absence of any evidence on record to establish that it

was a money lending transaction or that the agreement was

written on blank stamp paper after obtaining the signature of the

plaintiff, no substantial question of law arises. The second appeal

is dismissed.

JUDGE

NSN