Bombay High Court
Smt. Sushila Sahebrao Sonarkhan (Dead) ... vs Sau. Shalini Shridharrao Pawar on 11 January, 2024
Author: G.A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:601
1 46 sa 358.22.odt.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO. 358 OF 2022
Smt. Sushila Sahebrao Sonarkhan (Dead) and another
VS.
Sau. Shalini Shridharrao Pawar
_______________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr A.R. Ingole, Advocate for appellants.
Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : G.A. SANAP, J.
DATE : JANUARY 11, 2024.
Heard learned Advocates for the parties at the
stage of admission. The appellants are the original
defendants and respondent is the original plaintiff. It is
pointed out that the appellant No.1 died after the
decision of the First Appellate Court but before filing the
second appeal.
2. Appellant No.2 had challenged the judgment
and order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the learned
District Judge, Achalpur whereby the appeal filed by the
appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Daryapur came to be
2 46 sa 358.22.odt.
dismissed. In this order, the parties would be refereed by
their nomenclature in the plaint.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
defendants agreed to sell the suit land to her on
07.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.4,74,375/-. The
earnest note was executed by the defendants after
accepting the part consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-. The
defendants had agreed to apply for permission before the
Revenue Authority to transfer the suit land to the
plaintiff. Permission was granted. The plaintiff contended
that she has been ready and willing to perform her part of
contract but defendants for one reasons or the other
avoided to perform their part of contract. It resulted into
filing of the suit for specific performance of contract.
4. The defendants opposed the suit. They have
denied the transaction of sale. According to them, it was
money lending transaction. The agreement was by way of
security. Learned Judge of the Trial Court on
appreciation of the evidence decreed the suit filed by the
plaintiff for specific performance. The appeal filed by the
defendants came to be dismissed.
3 46 sa 358.22.odt.
5. It is seen that the courts below have recorded
the concurrent findings of facts in favour of the plaintiff.
I have gone through memo of appeal. The defence of the
defendants with regard to the money lending transaction
was rejected because the evidence adduce was found
insufficient. The earnest note at Exh. 30 has been
accepted as document of transaction between the parties
by learned Courts below. The permission for sale of the
land was obtained by the defendants. It is also seen that
the plaintiff complied the condition by depositing an
amount of Rs.96,500/- with Sub Divisional Officer,
Daryapur. On going through the record and proceedings
and particularly the findings of fact recorded by courts
below, I am of the view that no substantial question of
law arises in this appeal. The grounds of challenge in the
appeal clearly indicate that it is nothing but challenge to
the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts
below. On going through the record, I am satisfied that
there is no perversity in the findings of fact recorded by
the courts below.
6. In view of this, I am of the view that there is
no substance in the appeal. Accordingly, Second Appeal
is dismissed.
4 46 sa 358.22.odt.
7. The application (Civil Application)
No.1425/2023 filed for leading additional evidence, in
view of above stands rejected.
8. Second Appeal stands disposed of with no
order as to costs.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
Manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/01/2024 11:14:22
