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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.