Bombay High Court
Narayan Khandu Bhongale D/H And Ors vs Chandrakant Baburao Kunjir And Ors on 7 November, 2025
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:47435
26-SA-50-2025.DOC
Arun Sankpal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 815 OF 2025
Narayan Khandu Bhongale & Ors ..Appellants
Versus
Chandrakant Baburao Kunjir & Ors ...Respondents
Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal, for the Appellants.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 7th NOVEMBER 2025
ORDER.:
1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree
dated 17th October 2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune in
RCA No. 1093 of 2016, whereby the said Appeal preferred by the
Appellants against a decree passed by the trial Court in RCS No. 36 of
2012, thereby dismissing the Suit for specific performance of the
contract, came to be dismissed.
2. Late Narayan Khandu Bhongale, the Plaintiff and the predecessor-
in-title of the Appellants instituted a Suit for specific performance of the
contract to sell half share of Baburao Bhikoba Kunjir, the predecessor-in-
title of Defendant Nos. 1 to 6, out of Gat No. 232 admeasuring 4 H and
26-SA-50-2025.DOC
10 R, with the assertion that late Baburao Kunjir and Dattatray Kunjir
has executed an Agreement for Sale on 29 th May 1972 in respect of Gat
No. 232, accepted part consideration of Rs.4000/- thereunder and put
the late Plaintiff in possession of the said land. The predecessor-in-title
of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 committed default in execution of the Sale
Deed on one or the other pretext.
3. By a judgment and decree dated 18 th October 2016, the learned
Civil Judge dismissed the Suit holding inter alia that the late Plaintiff
failed to establish that he was ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract and the suit was within the stipulated period of Limitation
4. Being aggrieved, the late Plaintiff preferred an Appeal before the
District Court.
5. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned District Judge
substantially concurred with the view of the learned Civil Judge that the
late Plaintiff failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his
part of the contract and the Suit was not barred by law of limitation.
6. Mr. Bhujbal, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, submitted
that the Courts below committed a grave error in law in holding that the
late Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the late Plaintiff had been
put in possession of the entire Survey No. 232.
26-SA-50-2025.DOC
7. The co-vendor, namely, Dattatray Kunjir had executed the Sale
Deed in respect of the half portion of the land bearing Gat No. 232. The
predecessor-in-title of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 had, however, refused
to execute the Sale Deed. In these circumstances, the Courts below could
not have returned a finding that the late Plaintiff was not ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract. Thus, the substantial question
of law as to whether the Courts below misconstrued the evidence, arises
for consideration.
8. I am unable to persuade myself to accede to the submissions of
Mr. Bhujbal.
9. The material on record indicates that there was no impediment in
the execution of the conveyance of the suit property. The delay and
laches on the part of the Plaintiff is writ large. Though the Agreement
for Sale was executed on 29 th May 1972, it does not appear that the
Plaintiff took any steps to seek the conveyance of the suit land. On the
contrary, the vendors had addressed a notice to the purchaser calling
upon him to pay the balance consideration and get the said Sale Deed,
as there was no impediment in the execution of the Sale Deed.
10. If further appears that on 6th February 1982, the late Plaintiff had
addressed a notice to Baburao Kunjir, the predecessor-in-tile of the
Defendant Nos. 1 to 6, and Dattatray Kunjir calling upon them to attend
the office of the Registrar on 24th February 1982 and execute the Sale
26-SA-50-2025.DOC
Deed in respect of the respective portions of Gat No. 232. Evidently
Baburao Kunjir did not attend and execute the Sale Deed. Eventually, a
notice was again addressed by the Plaintiff on 27 th April 1987 calling
upon Baburao Kunjir to execute the Sale Deed. Surprisingly, no steps
were taken and a fresh notice came to be issued on 3 rd November 2011
and on the strength of the said notice, the Suit came to be instituted on
2nd January 2012.
11. The aforesaid time lag indicates that the refusal to perform the
contract was manifest in the failure on the part of the predecessor-in-tile
of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 to execute the Sale Deed after notices dated
6th February 1982 and 27th April 1987. The period of limitation to
institute the Suit thus began to run from the date of service of notice
dated 6th February 1982 and the refusal on the part of the Baburao
Kunjir to execute the Sale Deed. It is trite once the period of limitation
begins to run it does not stop. The suit was thus hopelessly barred by
law of limitation.
12. Even otherwise the Courts below have recorded concurrent
findings of fact that the late Plaintiff was not ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract. As noted above, the vendors had
addressed a notice to the late Plaintiff in the year 1980 calling upon him
to perform his part of the contract. The masterly inaction on the part of
the Plaintiff for over 25 years even after the notice dated 27 th April 1987
26-SA-50-2025.DOC
was at the own peril of the Plaintiff, and demonstrated a clear absence of
readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff. The Courts below
have thus taken a correct view of the matter. No question of law, much
less substantial one, arises for consideration.
13. The Second Appeal thus stands dismissed.
14. In the view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Interim
Application also stands disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
