Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

RAMAKANT RAMCHANDRA THAKARversusSHRI.ATMARAM BALARAM THAKUR AND OTHERS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The agreement is not an enforceable agreement for sale requiring specific performance, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellant, Ramakant Ramchandra Thakur, appealed against the order of the Adhoc District Judge which had allowed a civil appeal and set aside the trial court's decree directing the respondents to execute a sale deed. The suit sought specific performance of an agreement dated 24 January 1990, purportedly an agreement for sale of land for Rs.17,700. The High Court examined the document and concluded that it was a "Kararpatra" evidencing a completed sale, with consideration already paid and possession transferred, leaving no contractual obligation for the respondents. Consequently, there was no basis for specific performance. The Court also noted the plaintiff's seven‑year silence, finding no substantial question of law, and dismissed the second appeal.

Issues considered

  • Whether the document dated 24 January 1990 constitutes an agreement for sale that can be specifically performed
  • Whether specific performance is an appropriate remedy in the present facts
  • Whether the appellate court erred in setting aside the trial court's decree

Subjects

  • specific performance
  • agreement
  • sale deed
  • contract
  • civil appeal
  • appellate jurisdiction
  • property law

Judgment

                      Sonali Mane                                                 35-SA-693-2018.docx



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            SECOND APPEAL NO. 693 OF 2018


                      Ramakant Ramchandra Thakur                            … Appellant
                               Versus
                      Shri.Atmaram Balaram Thakur And Ors.                  … Respondents



                      Mr. Ramesh Karale for Appellant.
                      None for Respondents.


                                                        CORAM        : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                                        DATE         : 29 SEPTEMBER 2026.

                      P.C. :


                      1)            The Appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated
                      11 October 2017 passed by Adhoc District Judge, 2 Raigad-Alibag
                      allowing Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2010 and setting aside the judgment
                      and decree dated 23 November 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior
                      Division, Pen in Regular Civil Suit No. 117 of 1997. The suit was filed by
                      the Appellant/Plaintiff seeking specific performance of a document
                      titled as an agreement, which is shown to have been executed on
                      24 January 1990. The Trial Court had initially decreed the suit directing
                      Respondents/Defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the
                      Plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, has however, reversed the decree of
                      the Trial Court.



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

  MANE
                      Appellant and have considered the submissions canvassed by him.
  SONALI
  DILIP
Digitally signed by
MANE SONALI DILIP                                    ___Page No.1 of 2___
Date: 2026.10.01
14:25:38 +0530
                                                      29 September 2026
Sonali Mane                                                    35-SA-693-2018.docx



I have gone through the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court. I have also gone through a copy of the Agreement
dated 24 January 1990, which is placed on record by the learned
counsel.


3)            After going through the copy of the Agreement dated 24
January 1990, it becomes difficult to believe that the same is an
"agreement for sale". The Agreement dated 24 January 1990 is merely
branded as a "Kararpatra". Otherwise, the same actually effects sale of
the land on receipt of consideration of Rs.17,700/-. The document
records that the entire amount of Rs.17,700/- is paid to the Defendants,
that the land is sold, that the Plaintiff has acquired the ownership in
the land and that the Plaintiff is put in possession of the land. Thus,
going by the Agreement dated 24 January 1990, there was no
contractual obligation which remained to be performed by the
Defendants and of which, specific performance could have been sought
by the Plaintiff. The Trial Court had grossly erred in ignoring the nature
of arrangement between the parties effected vide Agreement dated 24
January 1990. The First Appellate Court has rightly held that there was
nothing in the Agreement dated 24 January 1990, which is required to
be specifically performed.


4)            The First Appellate Court has also taken into consideration
the conduct of the Plaintiff in maintaining silence for seven years and
six months. Considering the above position, in my view, no substantial
question of law is involved in the Appeal. The Second Appeal is
accordingly dismissed.


                                                      [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

                               ___Page No.2 of 2___
                                29 September 2026


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.