Shri.Krishna Bhima Kamble vs Shri.Sadashiv Annappa Bhosale
2023 Latest Caselaw 957 Bom

                                                                                        10-sa-204-2018.doc
         Pallavi


           Digitally signed
           by PALLAVI
                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           MAHENDRA
PALLAVI    WARGAONKAR
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR Date:
           2023.01.30
           18:52:49
           +0530


                                                    SECOND APPEAL NO.204 OF 2018
                                                                 WITH
                                                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO.405 OF 2019
                                                                  IN
                                                    SECOND APPEAL NO.204 OF 2018


                              Shri. Krishna Bhima Kamble                    ...Appellant/Applicant
                                    Versus
                              Shri. Sadashiv Annappa Bhosale               ...Respondent


                              Mr. V.B. Rajure, Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant.


                                                               CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : 30th JANUARY 2023

P.C. :

1. Heard Mr. Rajure, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant.

Mr. Rajure submits that following substantial question of law is

involved in the Second Appeal:-

"Whether the finding of the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court that the suit agreement is surrounded by suspicious circumstances is in accordance with evidence on record?"

10-sa-204-2018.doc Pallavi

2. Perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Court and the

learned First Appellate Court show that concurrent finding is

recorded that the suit agreement is surrounded by suspicious

circumstances.

3. The Appellant/plaintiff is the tenant of the suit premises and is

in occupation of the suit premises. It is the case of the Respondent -

defendant that for the purpose of obtaining electricity connection,

signature of the defendant was taken on blank paper and the same

was used for fabricating the suit agreement.

4. The learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate

Court, have after analysing the evidence on record, considered the

aspects that before 10 years, the police case was filed by the

defendant i.e. the plaintiff for causing nuisance. The Courts took into

consideration aspect that the stamp paper shows that the stamp

paper was obtained on 6th April 1996 whereas the agreement is

alleged to have been executed on 24 th July 1995. The said anomaly

has not been explained by the Appellant/plaintiff.

5. It is further found that the entire agreement is written on

various stamp papers i.e. 4 different stamp papers of denomination of

Rs.5/-. It is further found that signatures of the parties are taken in

10-sa-204-2018.doc Pallavi

different ink on the backside of the last stamp paper. The Courts have

found that the signatures of both the parties are taken on both the

pages in other documents. The Courts have recorded the finding that

writing is in different ink and the signatures are also in different ink.

The Courts have also found that there is no evidence to show that

consideration has been actually paid.

6. Therefore, for the above reasons and other circumstances, both

the Courts have concurrently found that the suit agreement is

surrounded by suspicious circumstances. There is nothing to show

that the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court as well as the

learned First Appellate Court are not in accordance with the evidence

on record. Therefore, there is no substance in the Second Appeal. The

same is dismissed however, with no order as to costs.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]