SHAIKH SALIM SHAIKH HALEEMversusSUMAN RAMPRASAD DABHADE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:30668

                                                                       910-CA-6891-2026.doc




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                              910 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6891 OF 2026
                                          IN SA/401/2026

                                    Shaikh Salim Shaikh Haleem
                                              VERSUS
                                Suman Ramprasad Dabhade And Others

                                             WITH
                                  SECOND APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2026

                                    Shaikh Salim Shaikh Haleem
                                              VERSUS
                                Suman Ramprasad Dabhade And Others

                                               ...
          Mr. Manish Tripathi for the Appellant.
          Mr. Suyashkumar S. Jangada for Respondent No.1.
          Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for State.
                                               ….


                                             CORAM :     SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                             DATE :      17 JULY 2026

          P. C.:

          1.        Herd learned counsel for the respective parties.

          2.        By this Appeal, the Appellant-original Defendant No.1 assails the

          judgment and decree passed by the District Judge-1, Parbhani in Regular

          Civil Appeal No.52 of 2021 dated 21st April 2026 arising out of judgment

          and decree passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani in Regular Civil

          Suit No.95/2015 dated 20th November 2021 thereby directing Defendant

          No.2/Sub-registrar Jintur to register sale deed at Exh.52 with or without

          presence of Defendant No.1 and further restraining Defendant No.1
          Shubham                                                                 Page 1 of 7
                                                          910-CA-6891-2026.doc


permanently from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit

property.

3.        The brief facts of the case are such that the suit property was

originally owned by Shaikh Usman which was allotted to him as a

permanent tenant under Section 38(e) of Hyderabad Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Permission to sale the said land was given

under Section 50B of the said Act and thereby Defendant No.1 purchased

the same. While granting permission a condition No.5 was imposed

obligating fresh permission at the time of subsequent transfer. Defendant

No.1 entered into an oral agreement with the Plaintiff to sale the suit

property for consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- out of which amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- was paid at the time of agreement and remaining was to be

paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The amount was paid in the form

of cheques. The Defendant No.1 acknowledged the receipt of token amount

on overleaf of each cheque. It was also signed by the witnesses. On 12 th April

2010, when Plaintiff, her husband, Defendant No.1 and witnesses approach

the office of Defendant No.2/sub-registrar, the Defendant No.2 refused to

register the sale deed stating endorsement of Section 36 and 36A in the

Rights column of 7/12 extract that prior permission of relevant authority is

essential. Immediately thereafter, Defendant No.1 applied for fresh

permission and he came to know on 16th December 2013 that no fresh

permission was required. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant No.1 to

Shubham                                                              Page 2 of 7
                                                           910-CA-6891-2026.doc


register the sale deed but he refused to do so. In the meantime, the

possession was also handed over to the Plaintiff and she is cultivating the

land personally since 12th April 2010. On Plaintiff’s repeated request, the

Defendant No.1 failed to execute sale deed, therefore Plaintiff issued a

notice calling upon Defendant No.1 to attend the office of sub-registrar on

23rd February 2015, in reply to which Defendant No.1 refused to execute

sale deed. Therefore, by filing RCS No.95/2015 the Plaintiff prayed for

mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to register the sale deed and

further restraining the Defendant No.1 perpetually from alienating the

property or creating third party interests therein. The said Suit was

dismissed whereas the First Appellate Court allowed the Appeal thereby

decreeing the Suit. Hence, the original Defendants have preferred the

Second Appeal.

4.        Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Suit on

the basis of oral agreement was not maintainable. He further submits that

even such oral agreement was not in existence and inviting my attention to

paragraph 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17 he contended that the Plaintiff has failed to

prove such oral agreement before the Trial Court. Readiness and willingness

on her part to execute sale deed was not proved. Therefore, learned Trial

Court has rightly dismissed the Suit, which was erroneously decreed by the

First Appellate Court. Praying to admit the Appeal, he proposed following

substantial questions of law:-

Shubham                                                               Page 3 of 7
                                                          910-CA-6891-2026.doc


   1) Whether, the plaintiff proved the oral agreement between the
   plaintiff and defendant No.1 in respect of Sy.No. 20/2 totally adm. 8H-
   63R to the extent of 2H-40R land for consideration of Rs. 3,75,000/-
   and further proved that, she has paid earnest money of Rs.2,50,000/-
   on 12.01.2010 and Rs.1,25,000/- toward full and final consideration
   on the day of so-called execution of sale-deed dated 12.04.2010?


   2) Whether, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking mandatory injunction,
   directing the defendant No.2-Registrar to register the sale-deed in
   respect of land Sy. No.20/2 adm. 8H-63R to the extent of 2H-40R land
   without seeking decree of specific performance of contract i.e. oral
   agreement as pleased by her in the suit?


   3) Whether, the defendant/ appellant has proved agreement to sale
   between Gangadhar i.e. father of plaintiff and the defendant No.1
   dated 24.11.2009 by examining the advocate Notary, Shri T.G. Holambe
   and further the appellant/defendant No.1 has proved that, there is no
   independent transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in
   respect of suit property apart from agreement dated 14.11.2009?


   4) Whether, once the appellant/ defendant No.1 has denied the
   signature on the cheques as well as so-called sale-deed then burden to
   prove the signature on the cheques and sale-deed lies on the plaintiff
   and not on defendant No.1, therefore merely because the defendant
   No.1/ appellant has not filed application for examination of said
   signature through the handwriting expert, can both the Courts record
   the finding that, the defendant No.1 has accepted the amount of
   Rs.2,50,000/- and signed the so-called sale-deed?


   5) Whether, the lower Appellate Court has complied with the directions

Shubham                                                              Page 4 of 7
                                                                910-CA-6891-2026.doc


     issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Hazari vs.
     Purushottam Tiwari, reported in AIR 2001 SC 965 and particularly,
     framed the issues arising in the matter.


     6) Whether, the first Appellate Court can consider the contents of
     unregistered sale-deed Exh-52 (which is disputed by defendant No.1)
     which are completely contrary to the pleadings and oral evidence of
     plaintiff in respect of transaction in question by virtue of Section 91
     and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?”


5.        Per contra, Mr. Jangada learned counsel for the original Plaintiff-

Respondent No.1 supports the order passed by the learned Appellate Court

by inviting my attention to para 50 and 51 which reads as under:-

     “Point no.3:
     50) There was no question of readiness or willingness, as the plaintiff had
     performed her part of contract and the defendant no.1 had performed his
     part of contract by execution of the sale deed. There was nothing left for
     defendant no.1 to perform except completing the formalities in the
     Registration office. But it appears that, defendant no.2 under wrong notions
     of law, refused to register the document. Therefore the question of only
     registration remained. As such this issue is determined as redundant.

     Point no.4:
     51) In such circumstances, the relief was mainly against the defendant no.2
     and there was no reason for defendant no.2 to refuse the registration once
     the clarification was issued by the office of Collector vide Exhibit 53.
     Therefore, refusal to registration was found to be illegal. Hence, this point
     is determined in the affirmative.”


6.        I have considered rival submissions of the learned counsel and


Shubham                                                                    Page 5 of 7
                                                          910-CA-6891-2026.doc


perused the record. It is not in dispute that the two cheques were signed by

Defendant No.1 and witnesses as a token of receipt of earnest amount as the

Trial Court has recorded relevant finding in paragraph 16. It is also proved

that the sale deed was returned by Defendant No.2/sub-registrar due to an

endorsement in the revenue record regarding Section 36 and 36A requiring

requisite permission to alienate the property. Though the Defendant No.1

denied receipt of money, said aspect is sufficiently proved by way of cheques

and his signature over the cheques and the sale deed. So far as the issue of

readiness and willingness is concerned, the learned First Appellate Court has

held that the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 had performed their part of the

contract and nothing was left except the completion of formalities but due to

wrong notion of law the sub-registrar refused to register the sale deed. As

such there was no relief claimed against Defendant No.1. The relief sought

was mainly against sub-registrar. The finding of learned Appellate Court that

intention to execute sale deed has not been challenged by the Appellant

herein, upon which learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the

findings can be challenged by way of submission also and the written notes

in that regard are also on record whereby the said finding is assailed.

7.        The aspects that emerge for consideration are that whether the

agreement has been entered into, whether the earnest amount has been

accepted, whether the Plaintiff has performed her part of the contract and

whether the only hurdle against registration was the endorsement in the

Shubham                                                              Page 6 of 7
                                                               910-CA-6891-2026.doc


Rights column of the revenue record. All these aspects are answered in

favour of Plaintiff. Thus, I am of the opinion that the learned First Appellate

Court has rightly held that the Suit ought to have been decreed.

8.        Therefore, considering the above I find that the Appellant has not

made out any case to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate

Court, much less no substantial questions are involved in the present Appeal.

9.        Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

10.       Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

11.       At this stage, learned counsel for the Appellant seeks continuation of

interim relief passed by the Appellate Court. Considering the dismissal of

Second Appeal, I am not inclined to continue the interim relief.



                                          [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]




Shubham                                                                   Page 7 of 7