Smt. Pushpa W/O Chandravadan ... vs Meghraj S/O Devandas Pabnani And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12190 Bom

18sast.10327.2021.                                                                                             1/2


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                            SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 10327/2021

                         Smt Pushpa w/o Chandravandan Meshram and others
                                              Versus
                              Meghraj s/o Devandas Pabnani and others.

*******************************************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                               Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
*******************************************************************************************************************
                  Shri R.K. Thakkar, Advocate for the Appellants.

                 CORAM            : S.M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 31/08/2021

Heard learned Advocate for the appellant/defendant No.8-Smt. Pushpa w/o Chandravadan Meshram. There was a suit for the specific performance of the agreement. Specific performance was not granted by the trial Court. Instead, there is an order to refund the earnest money. One of the reasons for defending the suit is not signing on the agreement by Defendant No.8 [even though her name appears on the first page of the agreement, her signature is not there at signature clause], which was considered by the trial Court. However, when the plaintiffs have filed a First Appeal, the First Appellate Court was pleased to grant specific performance. The appellant was directed to deposit the remaining amount of consideration of Rs. 2,11,900/- and the First Appellate Court has distributed that amount amongst the defendants and share of this defendant is demarcated at Rs. 52,640/-.

The main contention is that when this appellant has

18sast.10327.2021. 2/2

not signed on the agreement, the First Appellate Court has come to wrong conclusion in issuing that direction.

Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 9 have also challenged the said judgment by way of Second Appeal No. 160/2021. Substantial question of law was framed. So, issue notice before admission to respondents on following substantial question of law, returnable on 29th September, 2021:-

"Whether the First Appellate Court was right in directing defendant No.8-Pushpa to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondents, even though she has not signed on the agreement for sale, dated 21/08/1993".

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) ST. NO.10329/2021 In view of the fact that today the Court has framed substantial question of law and issued notice before admission to the respondents, the execution of decree directing to execute a sale-deed against appellant/defendant No.8- Pushpa w/o Chandravadan Meshram, is stayed till appearance of the respondents.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 29th September, 2021.

JUDGE

rkn