KHANDU DAJIBA KAVAR (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS Vs. LEELA W/O RANGNATH PADGHAN
LAWS(BOM)-2018-9-50
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on September 19,2018

Khandu Dajiba Kavar (Dead) Through Legal Heirs Appellant
VERSUS
Leela W/O Rangnath Padghan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.S. Chandurkar, J. - (1.) Since both these appeals raise a challenge to the common judgment of the appellate Court dated 07.01.2005, they are being decided together by this common judgment.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeals are that the suit property which is field Gat No.127 admeasuring 1 Hectare 45 R with half share in the well situated therein was owned by one Khandudefendant no.1. According to the plaintiff, said Khandu in February1987 agreed to sell the aforesaid field to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.25,000/-. On 19.02.1987, amount of Rs.24,000/- was paid after which a document was duly executed and the plaintiff was put in possession. The saledeed was to be executed by 01.12.1987. Since the suit field came within the Koradi Project, it was necessary to obtain the permission of the Competent Authority for its transfer. On 02.04.1988, balance amount of Rs.1,000/- was paid and a fresh document came to be executed. Though the plaintiff had performed her part of the contract, the defendant no.1 did not obtain the necessary permission. As the saledeed was not executed, the plaintiff made request to the defendant no.1. However, the defendant no.1 along with his wife and son made false revenue entries and his family members filed Regular Civil Suit No.408 of 1990 for perpetual injunction. That suit came to be dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance based on the aforesaid agreement.
(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants, it was pleaded that the defendant no.1 had obtained an amount of Rs.300/- from the plaintiff and had signed on a blank stamp paper. Though the amount borrowed was returned, the plaintiff did not return the stamp paper and converted it into an agreement of sale. It was denied that the plaintiff was in possession.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.