Bombay High Court

MISS LEENA RAMESH BHALERAO ALIAS MRS. LEENA PAUL ANTHONIversusMR.PATRIK SILWAY (DECEASED) 1-A.SMT.STEELA PATRIC SILWAY (DIED) 1. CHRISTINA PATRIK SILWAY

Decided: 9 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The sale deed is void for lack of consideration and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellant, Leena Ramesh Bhalerao, challenged a decree that declared a sale deed dated 18 January 1993 void for lack of consideration. The trial court and the first appellate court found that no consideration was ever paid by the appellant to the respondents, rendering the agreement void under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act. The appellant argued that the case involved a question of law, relying on a Supreme Court decision, but the High Court held that the matter was purely factual. The Court affirmed that the sale deed was void and dismissed the second appeal. Consequently, the related civil application for mesne profits was also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a sale deed executed without any payment of consideration is void under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act.
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the factual findings of the trial and first appellate courts.
Whether any substantial question of law arises from the non‑payment of consideration.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 20 Rule 12(c)
Indian Contract Act, 1872 — s. 25

Subjects

sale deed
consideration
void contract
Section 25
Indian Contract Act
civil appeal
mesne profits
fact finding

Judgment

                      Sonali Mane                                             25-SA-806-2017.docx



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          SECOND APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2017
                                                         WITH
                                        CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1576 OF 2017
                                                           IN
                                          SECOND APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2017

                      Misss Leena Ramesh Bhalerao
                      @ Leena Paul Anthoni                                 … Appellant
                               Versus

                      Patrik Silway (Decd.) Thr. Lrs.

                      Steela Patric Silway & Ors.                          … Respondents



                      Mr. Aryavrat Dube i/b Mr. S.S. Kulkarni for the Appellant.
                      None for Respondents.



                                                        CORAM       : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                                        DATE        : 9 SEPTEMBER 2026.

                      P.C. :



                      1)        The Appeal challenges Judgment and decree dated 1 September

                      2017 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Pune dismissing the Civil

                      Appeal No. 319 and 2012 and confirming the decree of the Trial Court

                      dated 28 April 1995 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 141 of 1993. While

                      decreeing the suit of Plaintiffs/Respondents, the Trial Court had held
   MANE
   SONALI
   DILIP
Digitally signed by
MANE SONALI DILIP                                   ___Page No.1 of 3___
Date: 2026.09.11
11:29:38 +0530
                                                      9 September 2026
Sonali Mane                                                       25-SA-806-2017.docx



sale deed dated 18 January 1993 to be null and void and not binding on

the Plaintiffs. The Appellant/Defendant is directed to hand over

possession of the suit flat to the Plaintiffs, in addition to direction for

making an enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12(c) of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.




2)        I have heard Mr. Dube, the learned counsel appearing for

Appellant and have considered the submissions canvassed by him.




3)        Perusal of the judgments rendered by the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court would indicate that what is conducted by them is

a mere factual enquiry into the aspect of actual payment of

consideration        by       the         Appellant/Defendant             to        the

Respondents/Plaintiffs. Upon conducting a factual enquiry, both the

Courts have concurrently held that not a farthing is actually paid by the

Appellant to the Respondents. The case, thus does not involve an

eventuality     where       some     consideration    is   paid      and       balance

consideration remained unpaid. Therefore, the reliance placed by Mr.

Dube on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raziya Begum and

Ors. Vs. Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid and Ors .1 is inapposite. The present


1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1511
                                   ___Page No.2 of 3___
                                     9 September 2026
Sonali Mane                                                 25-SA-806-2017.docx



case involves non-payment of even a single rupee by Defendant to the

Plaintiffs. In the factual enquiry conducted by the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court, it is concurrently established that no

consideration is paid in pursuance of sale deed dated 18 January 1993.

The transaction of sale is thus clearly hit by provisions of Section 25 of

the Indian Contract Act. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court

have rightly ruled against the Appellant. No substantial question of law

is involved in the Appeal.




4)       The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.




5)        In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application is

also disposed of.




                                                     [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                              ___Page No.3 of 3___
                                9 September 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…