[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Gangadhar S/O Harji More vs Sanjany S/O Mukundrao Mahajan on 8 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13858
24. SA 358 of 2025.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO.358/2025
Gangadhar s/o Hariji More
...Versus...
Sanjay s/o Mukundrao Mahajan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Mr. O.W. Gupta & Ms Aparna Satheesan, Advocates for appellant
Mr. B.S. Rajurkar & Mr. Y.N. Thengre, Advocates for respondent
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 08/12/2025
1. The present second appeal is preferred against
concurrent decrees for specific performance of contract passed
against the present appellant.
2. The defence of the appellant/defendant is that the
defendant was in need of money and had therefore, obtained
hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and that the
plaintiff obtained his signatures on certain blank stamp papers
and has accordingly created a false document of agreement of
sale. It is further contended that the appellant/defendant was
in further need of money to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-
somewhere in May, 2011 and at that time as well his
signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers. Both the
learned Courts have disbelieved the version of the defendant
that he had not entered into any agreement of sale and that
his signatures on blank papers were obtained in order to
secure loan amount.
24. SA 358 of 2025.odt
3. The plaintiff has entered in the witness box to
prove transaction of sale. The plaintiff has also examined
P.W.-2, who is attesting witness to the document in question.
The other attesting witness to the agreement is brother of the
defendant. However, the defendant has not examined his
brother.
4. The case of defendant is that he was in need of
money to the tune of Rs.6,50,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- at the time
of execution of agreement during February, 2011 and further
Rs.1,50,000/- somewhere around May, 2011 and that the
plaintiff had obtained his signatures on blank stamp papers,
which were subsequently misused to create agreement of sale
and payment receipt. As stated above, the defendant did not
examine his brother, who is attesting witness to the
agreement. In order to substantiate his case, the defendant
tried to contend that the plaintiff allegedly entered into
agreement with him although his name was not mutated in
revenue records. However, the learned Courts have discarded
this as a circumstance for disbelieving the agreement since
sale-deed with respect to the suit property stands in the name
of the defendant and plaintiff clearly stated that he had
perused the sale-deed prior to enter into agreement. The
learned Courts have also found that as against contention of
defendant that amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was received by him
as a hand loan, the plaintiff had by leading cogent evidence
proved payment to the tune of Rs.8,50,000/-. In this regard
the learned Courts have also recorded that the amount of
alleged hand loan was not specified by the defendant either in
his reply notice at Exh.20 or in the written statement. The
24. SA 358 of 2025.odt
learned Courts have also recorded that the evidence of
defendant did not indicate repayment of the alleged loan
amount or any attempt towards the same. Both the Courts
have found that except for a bare statement by the defendant
that the plaintiff was engaged in illegal business of money
lending without licence, there is no evidence on record to
substantiate the same.
5. The judgments delivered by both the learned
Courts take into consideration the entire evidence that is
brought on record by the parties. The evidence is properly
appreciated in order to record finding of fact that the plaintiff
had duly proved the agreement in question.
6. Apart from the contention that the transaction
was in fact a money lending transaction, no other contention is
advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellant before this
Court.
7. Having perused the pleadings and depositions,
which are produced for perusal of this Court, this Court sees
no reason to take a different view of the matter, particularly
having regard to limited scope of interference under Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Second Appeal therefore
does not disclose any substantial question of law and is
dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
Wadkar
Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/12/2025 17:47:03
