SHRI SHASHIKANT ARJUN JADHAVversusGOKUL VITHAL JADHAV

                                                                                  -SA-483-2026.DOC




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                        SECOND APPEAL NO. 483 OF 2026


                      Shashikant Arjun Jadhav & Anr                               ...Appellants
                           Versus
                      Gokul Vithal Jadhav                                     …Respondent

                      Mr. P. G. Chavan, with Sachin Padaye, for the Appellants.

                                                  CORAM:         N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                  DATE :         7th OCTOBER 2026


                      ORDER:

                      1.    This Second Appeal is directed against a judgment and decree

                      dated 2nd March 2026 passed by the leaned District Judge, Baramati, in

                      RCA No. 38 of 2025, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Appellants-

ARUN
                      Plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 21 st March 2025
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL

Digitally signed by
ARUN
                      passed by the learned Civil Judge in RCS No. 266 of 2013, thereby
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.10.08
16:03:53 +0530

                      dismissing the suit for specific performance of contract contained in the

                      registered Agreement for Sale dated 25 th March 2008, came to be

                      dismissed.

                      2.    Under the said Agreement for Sale, the Respondent-Defendant

                      had agreed to sell the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 1,55,000/-. A

                      sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid thereunder towards the part

                      consideration. As the suit land was of Class-II tenure, permission of the
                      ARS                                  1/4
                                                            -SA-483-2026.DOC

Competent Authority was required to alienate the suit land. Asserting

that the Defendant did not co-operate in obtaining the said permission

and refused to perform his part of the contract, the Appellants instituted

the suit on 16th July 2013.

3.    The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit, in its entirety, holding

that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that they were ready and willing to

perform their part of the contract and the suit was barred by the law of

limitation.

4.    The learned District Judge was persuaded to partly allow the

Appeal to the extent of refund of consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-

alongwith interest from the date of the institution of the suit.

5.    Mr. Chavan, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, submitted

that the Courts below erred in returning a finding that the Plaintiffs

were not ready and willing to perform their part of contract. It was

submitted that, since the Plaintiffs had paid a substantial consideration

of Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of the execution of Agreement for Sale and

had also deposited the balance consideration of Rs.55,000/- and, it was

the obligation of the Defendant to obtain the permission from the

Competent Authority, the Courts below could not have returned the

findings against the Appellants.

6.    Evidently, in the Agreement for Sale, no date was fixed for the

performance of the contract. The sale was to be executed after the


ARS                                    2/4
                                                           -SA-483-2026.DOC

permission of the Competent Authority for alienation was obtained.

Upon construction of the Agreement for Sale, the Courts below have

recorded a finding of fact that the Plaintiffs were to obtain such

permission. An evidentiary admission was elicited in the cross-

examination of Shashikant Jadhav (PW1) that under two to three

months of the execution of the Agreement for Sale, the Defendant

refused to co-operate the Plaintiffs in obtaining the permission for

alienation and also declined to sell the suit land.

7.    In the face of the aforesaid material and findings of fact, the case

would be governed by the Second Part of the Article 54 of the

Limitation Act, 1963. The Plaintiffs had knowledge of refusal of

performance in the year 2008 itself. Yet, the suit came to be instituted in

the year 2013, nay, the pre-suit notice was given about four years after

the knowledge of refusal. Thus, the Courts below were fully justified in

holding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that they were willing to

perform their part of the contract and that the suit was barred by law of

limitation.

8.    Such concurrent findings of fact are not open for interference in

exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under the regime of Section 100 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

9.    Resultantly, no question of law, much less a substantial question

of law, arises for consideration.


ARS                                    3/4
                                                       -SA-483-2026.DOC

10.   The Second Appeal, thus, stands dismissed.



                                          [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                 4/4