In this second appeal regarding a property dispute, the appellant challenged the lower court's finding that a sale deed was executed on account of legal necessity. The High Court held there was no unreasonable conclusion and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Tapadia RR
1 / 5 SA/286/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.508 OF 2012 IN SA/286/2012
Balu Shankar Waje & Ors
..Appellants
Vs
Vishnu Murlidhar Waje and Ors
.. Respondents
Mr.Satyajeet Dighe, Advocate for the Appellants.
CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 20/06/2013
PC:
2 / 5 SA/286/2012
3 / 5 SA/286/2012
influence of liquor and even this fact was borne out in the evidence of DW 1. DW 1 Vishnu admitted in the crossexamination that on 13.3.2002 defendant no.1 Shankar died due to fall in well and on 14.3.2002 he had lodged a report with police station wherein it was mentioned that Shankar fell in the well under the influence of liquor and died. Mr Dighe, therefore, submitted that since DW 1 has executed the sale deed in favour of DW 2 under the influence of liquor, the learned District Judge ought to have dismissed the appeal. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced by Mr Dighe. I have also perused the material on record. Perusal of the order passed by the learned District Judge and in particular from paragraphs 12 to 25 shows that the learned District Judge has considered the evidence of the witnesses examined by both sides. The learned District Judge also considered the relevant recitals in the sale deed and ultimately came to the conclusion that defendant no.2 has established the legal necessity. Mr Dighe submitted that the alleged legal necessity was for payment of redemption amount to DW 3 Jijabai. However, no amount was outstanding. It is material to note that in the sale deed there is a recital that in order to redeem part of the suit land, defendant no.1 Shankar had executed the sale deed.
4 / 5 SA/286/2012
However, the plaintiffs did not aver in the plaint that the amount was not outstanding and, therefore there was no question of redemption of mortgage. It is, therefore, not possible to accept to the submission of Mr Dighe for the first time that the amount of mortgage was already paid and nothing was outstanding.
5 / 5 SA/286/2012
(R.G.KETKAR, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Judge committed an error in holding that the respondent established the legal necessity for the sale deed.
Whether there was a material contradiction in the witness testimonies regarding the reason for executing the sale deed.
Whether the appellate court was justified in dismissing the second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balu Shankar Waje & Ors
Vishnu Murlidhar Waje and Ors
R.G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
