Dismissed

Shidaji Haridas Jadhav v. Sagar Vyankat Ghodke

Bombay HC7 Mar 2018WP/1852/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court dismissed the challenge to an appellate order that had quashed an interim injunction and allowed a counter-claim. The court held it could not adjudicate on the genuineness of the disputed agreement due to third party rights created by a subsequent sale of the property, referencing Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Shidaji Haridas Jadhav Vs Sagar Vyankat Ghodke — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

913-WP-1852-18 .odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1852 OF 2018

¶5

SHIDAJI HARIDAS JADHAV

¶6

VERSUS SAGAR S/O VYANKAT GHODKE

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Akash Gadhe h/f. Shri S.J. Salunke Advocate for Respondent : Shri B.B. Bhise

¶8

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. DATED : 07^th March, 2018.

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

1] The petitioner/original plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06-09-2017, delivered by the Appellate Court, by which, Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 83/2016 preferred by the defendant is allowed and the injunction granted by the Trial Court below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 47/2016 has been quashed and set aside.

¶11

2] I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent. With their assistance, I have gone through the petition paper book and I have also perused the extract of the Notary's Register in

¶12

2 913-WP-1852-18 .odt

¶13

which the purported agreement to sell dated 19/05/2015 has been recorded at Latur, The non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- is purchased by the defendant from Renapur is the contention of the plaintiff.

¶14

3] The petitioner/plaintiff is before the Trial Court alleging that an agreement to sell was signed by the defendant and the plaintiff, agreeing to sell the land gut No. 13 admeasuring 3 Hectors and 91 Ares for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/(Rupees Ten Lakhs only). Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five Lakhs only) are said to have been paid by the plaintiff in cash to the defendant. The photograph of the defendant is affixed on the said agreement to sell which is a notarized document. A receipt is also said to be purportedly executed by the defendant after receiving Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in cash.

¶15

4] The defendant has taken a stand that he does not know the plaintiff and has not entered into an agreement to sell with him. It is a bogus document and which does not find the signature of the defendant. The defendant continues to hold the possession of the entire land, admeasuring 3 Hectors and 91 Ares.

¶16

3 913-WP-1852-18 .odt

¶17

5] The Appellate Court has noticed certain discrepancies in the non-judicial stamp paper as well as the register maintained by the Notary and the nature of erasing, discoloration and over writing. The register maintained by the Notary also exhibits a drastic change in the hand writing. Moreover, in a matter seeking specific performance of contract, when the Appellate Court noticed certain discrepancies in the agreement to sell and the register of the Notary, it has vacated the interim protection granted to the petitioner/plaintiff by the Trial Court.

¶18

6] This Court cannot go into disputed questions as to whether the notarized document is genuine or as to whether the register maintained by the Notary can be said to have been interpolated or manipulated. It is informed that the defendant has already sold his entire land admeasuring 13 Hectors 91 Ares to other persons by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 16/06/2015, by which the consideration is to be paid to the defendant by the purchaser within a period of 30 months.

¶19

7] Considering the above, it can only be observed in the light of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act that in the

¶20

4 913-WP-1852-18 .odt

¶21

event of third party rights being created by the defendant, the

¶22

same would be subject to the result of the pending suit.

¶23

8] This petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶24

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶25

shp/-

Shidaji Haridas Jadhav v. Sagar Vyankat Ghodke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shidaji Haridas Jadhav v. Sagar Vyankat Ghodke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parmeshwar Kushaba Namde Vs V.G. Shirolkar and Others

Irani @ Saraswatibai Baswantappa Mathpati and Another Vs Sulanbai Sambayaappa Mathpatii and Others

Gangaram Sidhu Kale Vs the Range Forest Officer Sangamner and Others

Balaji Sambhaji Munde and Others Vs Dhondiram Laxmabn Phad Died Lrs Vimalbai Dhondiram Phad and Others

Vimalbai Meghsyam Mahajan and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vimalbai Meghsyam Mahajan and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others