Bombay High Court
TARANNUM BEGUMversusISMAIL ABDULLAH SHAIKH
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- FARHAN PARVEZ DUBASH
Holding
The appellate court upheld the trial court's interim order dismissing the appellant's notice of motion, finding no error in the trial court's determination.
Summary
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 14 October 2020, seeking to restrain the respondent from dispossessing her of Flat No. 306. The respondent contended that the agreement was forged and that he could not have signed it because he was hospitalized for COVID‑19 from 7 to 21 October 2020. The trial court, relying on the respondent's medical report, held that the agreement was not executed by him and dismissed the appellant's interim relief application. On appeal, the appellant argued that the agreement bore the signatures of other parties and that the hospital certificate was fabricated, and she sought to rely on documents obtained later under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellate court found that the trial court had correctly applied the material before it, that the appellant had not shown any infirmity in the interim order, and that new evidence could be led at the final trial. Consequently, the appeal against the interim order was dismissed without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the Agreement for Sale dated 14 October 2020 was validly executed by the respondent.
- Whether the respondent's medical report showing quarantine precludes his execution of the agreement.
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the appellant's interim application for specific performance and injunction.
- Whether documents obtained after the impugned order can be considered on appeal.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- specific performance
- agreement for sale
- forgery
- interim relief
- medical report
- COVID‑19 quarantine
- burden of proof
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
905-AO-792-2024+
Tarannum Begum vs. Ismail Abdullah Shaikh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 792 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14578 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 792 OF 2024
Tarannum Begum ...Appellant
V/s.
Ismail Abdullah Shaikh ...Respondent
______________________________________
Ms. Kranti Anand (Through VC) a/w Mr. Kush Gala & Mr. Afsar Ansari, for
the Appellant.
Mr. Abuzaid Javed Iraqui, for the Respondent.
_______________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL 2026.
P.C.:
1. The present Appeal impugns an order dated 9th August 2024 passed by
the Trial Court in Notice of Motion No. 2293 of 2024 (impugned order). By
this impugned order, the Trial Court has dismissed the said Notice of Motion
preferred by the Appellant/Original Plaintiff, who has sought to restrain the
Respondent from dispossessing and alienating the suit property.
2. The Appellant has filed the Suit in the Trial Court seeking specific
performance of an Agreement for Sale dated 14 th October 2020. Under this
Agreement for Sale, the Respondent is stated to have entered into a contract
to sell the suit property viz. Flat No. 306 situated on the 3 rd Floor of Building
AMOL
PREMNATH
JADHAV No. 6 in Pawan Baug CHS, Chincholi Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400 064,
Digitally signed by Page 1 of 4
AMOL PREMNATH
JADHAV -------------------------------------
Date: 2026.05.06 Order dated 28th April 2026.
14:27:14 +0530
905-AO-792-2024+
Tarannum Begum vs. Ismail Abdullah Shaikh
with the Appellant for consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-.
3. A perusal of this Agreement for Sale reveals that the entire
consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/- was paid in cash to the Respondent that too,
prior to the execution of the Agreement for Sale. The Appellant then
contends that notwithstanding this Agreement for Sale, the Respondent did
not appear for the registration thereof and instead demanded further
consideration, a part of which was paid by her. In these circumstances, the
Appellant has approached the Trial Court seeking protective reliefs and to
restrain the Respondent from dispossessing her from the suit property.
4. In response, the Respondent contends that the Agreement for Sale is a
forged and fabricated agreement, which has not been executed by him on
14th October 2020. To corroborate this, the Respondent relied on Medical
Reports (Discharge Summary) issued by the Seven Hills Dedicated Covid
Hospital (DCH), Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 059, which shows that he was
suffering from coronavirus at that time and was admitted in the said hospital
on 7th October 2020 and was discharged therefrom only on 21 st October
2020. The Respondent therefore submits that he could never have executed
the Agreement for Sale on 14th October 2020 since he was under quarantine
during the entire said period.
5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Trial Court has
considered these submissions made by the parties and has prima facie found
favour with the case advanced by the Respondent that the Agreement for
Page 2 of 4
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026.
905-AO-792-2024+
Tarannum Begum vs. Ismail Abdullah Shaikh
Sale was not executed by him, since he was in quarantine in the said hospital
during that period. The Trial Court has also recorded a finding that the
Appellant has failed to make out any prima facie case. The Trial Court has
recorded a further finding that since the Appellant had approached the Court
with a false case, she is not entitled to any reliefs and on that basis,
dismissed the Notice of Motion preferred by her.
6. Ms. Kranti Anand, learned Counsel who appears for the Appellant is at
pains to point out that the Trial Court has not considered the fact that
besides the signature of the Respondent on the Agreement for Sale, several
other persons have also signed it and there is no finding recorded in that
regard that the same was not signed by the said persons. She further
submits that the hospital certificate that is produced by the Respondent and
which was accepted by the Trial Court, is forged and fabricated since there is
no such hospital at the address mentioned in the said Certificate. She seeks
to rely upon subsequent documentation, which she states has been obtained
by her client pursuant to an application made under the Right to Information
Act, 2005. However, this documentation was obtained by her only after
passing of the impugned order and therefore was not placed before the Trial
Court. As a result, it was not considered in the impugned order. In this
background, she is not in a position to satisfy this Court that such new
material/documents, etc. can be considered by this Court in the present
Appeal when the same was not considered by the Trial Court at the time of
Page 3 of 4
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026.
905-AO-792-2024+
Tarannum Begum vs. Ismail Abdullah Shaikh
passing the impugned order.
7. Prima facie, from the documents that were available before the Trial
Court, it has arrived at a correct finding that the Agreement for Sale appears
to be a fabricated document upon accepting the Medical Reports produced
by the Defendant. In such circumstances, once this finding was given, to my
mind, the Appellant’s contention that the Trial court has failed to take notice
of the fact that the Agreement for Sale also bears signature of Attesting
Witness/es and/or record any finding thereon loses significance.
8. The Appellant is not in a position to point out any infirmity in the
impugned order. The impugned order is an interim order and the
observations made therein will not bind the Trial Court at the final hearing.
The Appellant will always be at liberty to lead evidence in support and prove
the correctness of the contentions that are raised by her at the interim stage
even though the same have not been accepted in the impugned order. She
would also be entitled to seek liberty and rely on these new documents
which she states to have recently obtained. Accordingly, Appeal From Order
No. 792 of 2024 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. All pending Interim Applications stand disposed of in terms of this
order and interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )
Gitalaxmi
Page 4 of 4
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026.
Checking your session…