SITARAM MALJI KHAREversusSATYABHAMA PUNJARAM SHINDE

                       Priyanka                                           38-SA0-222-2024.docx


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                           SECOND APPEAL NO.222 OF 2024


                       Sitaram Malji Khare                                   ...Appellant
                                          V/s.

                       Satyabhama Punjaram Shinde                           ...Respondent

                                                     ________________
                       Mr. Nikhil G. Hire a/w Mr. Praveen Ahire for the Appellant.
          Digitally
          signed by

PRIYANKA
          PRIYANKA
          MADHAVRAO
                                                     ________________
MADHAVRAO KALE
KALE      Date:
          2026.09.01
          10:52:30
                                                                CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
          +0530


                                                                DATED: 28 AUGUST 2026.

                       P.C.:

                       1)            The Second Appeal is filed challenging concurrent findings
                       recorded by the Trial Court and Appellate Court in a Suit filed for specific
                       performance. The Trial Court has decreed the Suit for specific
                       performance by Decree dated 17 December 2022 passed in Special Civil
                       Suit No.35 of 2019 directing Plaintiff to pay balance consideration of
                       Rs.1,80,000/- to the Defendant and directing the Defendant to execute
                       the Sale Deed in respect of the Suit Property in the name of the Plaintiff.
                       The Decree of the Trial Court is confirmed in Appeal by the District
                       Court, Malegaon by dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2023
                       preferred by the Appellant/Defendant.


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


                                                         Page No.1 of 3
                                                        28 August 2026
Priyanka                                          38-SA0-222-2024.docx




3)          In the present case, an Agreement for sale was executed by
Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff on 4 July 2013. The agreed
consideration under the Agreement was Rs.8,17,000/- and Plaintiff paid
earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Defendant. Since, permission of
Collector was required for the transaction of sale, an Application was
made by the Defendant himself to the Collector seeking permission for
sale transaction. It appears that, Collector's Office took some time in
processing the permission. In the meantime, Plaintiff paid amount of
Rs.21,000/- on 31 October 2014, Rs.51,000/- on 12 March 2015,
Rs.2,00,000/- on 31 May 2015 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 12 April 2016.
Defendant has received to amount of Rs.6,71,000/- from the Plaintiff.
The permission was ultimately granted in the year 2018 and Plaintiff
requested Defendant to execute the sale. Since, Defendant failed to
execute the Sale Deed, Suit for specific performance was required to be
filed.


4)          Considering the above conduct, it is difficult to believe the
story of Defendant that, Plaintiff was not ready and willing to execute
the Sale Deed. It is sought to be contended by Mr. Hire, the learned
counsel appearing for the Appellant that there was gross delay in
securing permission of Collector for sale transaction and that it was
necessary for the Plaintiff to prove that during this entire period of five
years, he was always ready and willing to complete the sale transaction.
In the present case, Plaintiff has paid several amounts to Defendant
during the pendency of the permission Application. The last payment
was made on 12 April 2016. The Defendant filed Affidavit at Exhibit-44

                                 Page No.2 of 3
                                28 August 2026
Priyanka                                            38-SA0-222-2024.docx


before the Collector, confirming his intention to sell the land. He never
withdrew Application for permission till the same was granted in the
year 2018. This would indicate that, parties were desirous of completing
the sale transaction right till the year 2018. Immediately, after
permission was issued, Plaintiff made an approach to the Defendant
requesting for execution of sale. In my view, therefore, both the Courts
have rightly recorded factual findings of readiness and willingness on the
part of the Plaintiff to complete the sale transaction.


5)           In view of the above discussion, no substantial question of
law is involved in the Appeal.


6)           The Second Appeal is accordingly rejected.


                                                   [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                                  Page No.3 of 3
                                 28 August 2026