Dismissed

Shri.Sunil Nagnath Jadhav and Others v. Shri.Uddhav Shrirang Jadhav and Thers

Bombay HC10 Aug 2023SA/189/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by purchasers of suit property dismissed. Court held registered agreement held by original parties created notice, barring bona fide purchaser defense. Section 52 (lis pendens) applies as appeal is continuation of suit. Civil application also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed; Civil Application No.238 of 2018 dismissed.

Shri.Sunil Nagnath Jadhav and Others Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

916-sa-189-2018.doc

¶2

Pallavi

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed by PALLAVI PALLAVIMAHENDRAWARGAONKAR MAHENDRAWARGAONKARDate:2023.08.18 18:36:56 +0530

¶5

SECOND APPEAL NO.189 OF 2018

¶6

Shri. Sunil Nagnath Jadhav and Ors....Appellants
 Versus
Shri. Uddhav Shrirang Jadhav and Ors....Respondents

¶7

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.238 OF 2018 IN

¶8

SECOND APPEAL NO.189 OF 2018

¶9

Shri. Sunil Nagnath Jadhav and Ors.…Applicants
Versus

¶10

Shri. Uddhav Shrirang Jadhav and Ors....Respondents

¶11

Mr. A.S. Rao a/w Vignesh Ashokan i/b. Sachin Deokar, for the Appellants.

¶12

Mr. Rahul S. Kadam, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶13

 CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 10th AUGUST 2023

¶14

P.C:

¶15

1. Heard Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants

¶16

and Mr. Rahul S. Kadam, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶17

2. The Appellants were not parties to the suit. The Appellants

¶18

were impleaded as parties before the learned First Appellate Court as
they have purchased the suit property by three separate registered

¶19

1/6

¶20

916-sa-189-2018.doc

¶21

Pallavi

¶22

sale deeds dated 14th August 2013, 28th March 2013 and 28th March
2013 during the pendency of Civil Appeal No.131 of 2011 (Old Civil
Appeal No.131 of 2006). Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the
Appellants are bonafide purchasers without notice of suit transaction.
Therefore, it is his contention that fair opportunity should have been
given to the Appellants by allowing the Appeal and the learned First
Appellate Court ought to have remanded the matter to the learned
Trial Court.

¶23

3.Before considering the said contention raised by Mr. Rao,
learned counsel appearing for the Appellants, it is necessary to set out
certain factual aspects. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the original
Plaintiffs and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the original Defendant
Nos.1 and 2. The original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of
the suit property. They entered into registered agreement for sale
dated 14th September 2001. By said registered agreement of sale
(Exh.33), Defendant Nos.1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit property in
favour of the original plaintiffs for total consideration of
Rs.1,51,000/- The said registered agreement of sale specifically
records that the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,51,000/- was paid.
On the very day i.e. on 14th September 2001, separate possession

¶24

2/6

¶25

916-sa-189-2018.doc

¶26

Pallavi

¶27

receipt was executed and the possession of the suit property was
handed over to the plaintiffs. As the original Defendant Nos.1 and 2
were not executing the sale deed, the suit notice seeking specific
performance of the agreement of sale was issued by the plaintiffs on
30th July 2005. Thereafter, on 29th August 2005, Reg. Civil Suit
No.177 of 2005 was filed for specific performance as the Defendant
Nos.1 and 2 failed to comply with the suit notice.

¶28

4.Learned Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 1st August
2006 partly decreed the suit by directing the Defendant Nos.1 and 2
to jointly and severally pay Rs.1,51,000/- to the plaintiffs within two
months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said judgment
and decree of the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs filed Reg. Civil
Appeal No.131 of 2011 (old Civil Appeal No.131 of 2006). During the
pendency of the said Appeal, the present Appellants purchased the
suit property by three registered sale deeds dated 14th August 2013,
28th March 2013 and 28th March 2013.

¶29

5.Learned First Appellate Court after considering the entire
evidence on record held that the plaintiffs are entitled for specific
performance of the suit agreement. Learned Trial Court has inter alia,
rejected the relief of specific performance on the ground that the suit

¶30

3/6

¶31

916-sa-189-2018.doc

¶32

Pallavi

¶33

property was sold for consideration of Rs.1,51,000/- and the loan
amount availed by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 by mortgaging the suit
property was Rs.2,55,000/- and therefore, held that it is impossible
for the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to sell the suit property at the price of
Rs.1,51,000/-. However, learned First Appellate Court by giving
cogent reasons has set aside the said finding of the learned Trial
Court. The said discussion of the learned First Appellate Court is to
be found in paragraph 11 which reads as under :-

¶34

“11.The finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the suit properties consideration was Rs.1,51,000/- and the loan amount was Rs.2,55,000/-, so it was impossible for the defendants to sale it for Rs.1,51,000/- and the transaction is a loan transaction, this finding is not correct . Because the defendants have stated that, they have obtained loan of Rs.1,60,000/- on the entire suit property i.e. Gat no.74/1 adm. 2H. 26R. land and the plaintiffs have only agreed to purchase 1H. 13R. land and that too the west side . So, the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that, the loan was only on the suit property is not correct. The loan was on the entire Gat no.74/1. The defendants have failed to show any document that as on the date of agreement of sale the outstanding loan amount was Rs.2,55,000/-. Even, if it is assumed that, the entire loan outstanding was Rs.2,55,000/on 2H. 26R. land, then, the loan amount on 1H. 13R. land i.e.

¶35

4/6

¶36

916-sa-189-2018.doc

¶37

Pallavi

¶38

the suit property is Rs.1,27,500/- and so the agreement for
sale at (Exh.33) was for Rs.1,51,000/- and it is certainly more
than the suit property. So, definitely, it was an agreement for
sale and not money-lending transaction.”

¶39

(Emphasis added)

¶40

6.In this background of the case, it is the contention of Mr. Rao,
learned counsel appearing for the Appellants that the Appellants who are
not parties to the suit have purchased the suit property by registered sale
deeds dated 14th August 2013, 28th March 2013 and 28th March 2013. It is
his contention that the Appellants are the bona fide purchasers of the suit
property without notice of the suit transaction. As far as the said
contention is concerned, it is to be noted that the agreement of sale dated
14th September 2001 in favour of the plaintiffs executed by the Defendant
Nos.1 and 2 is registered agreement of sale. The said registered agreement
specifically states that the entire consideration has been paid by the
plaintiffs to the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. As the said agreement is registered
agreement of sale, it cannot be said that the present Appellants are the
bona fide purchasers without notice of suit transaction.

¶41

7.Apart from that, the transaction between the Appellants and the
original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. It is settled legal position that atransfer which is made

¶42

5/6

¶43

916-sa-189-2018.doc

¶44

Pallavi

¶45

lis pendens is not a void document. It does create rights as between the
parties to the sale. The right of the party to the suit who conveys his right
by a sale is extinguished. All that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 provides is that the transfer which is made during the pendency
of the proceeding is subjected to the final result of the litigation[G.T.
Girish v. Y. Subba Raju1]. It is settled legal position that Appeal is
continuation of the suit. The present suit was filed on 29th August 2005
and the transaction in favour of the Appellants is dated 14th August 2013
and 28th March 2013. Therefore, Section 52 will apply to the said
transaction. In any case, the factual position on record clearly shows that
the Appellants are not bona fide purchasers without notice of the suit
transaction.

¶46

8.Therefore, there is no substance in the contentions raised by the
learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. Second Appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, nothing survives in the Civil
Application and the same is also dismissed.

¶47

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶48

1 . (2022) 12 SCC 321

¶49

6/6

Shri.Sunil Nagnath Jadhav and Others v. Shri.Uddhav Shrirang Jadhav and Thers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Sunil Nagnath Jadhav and Others v. Shri.Uddhav Shrirang Jadhav and Thers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Appa Ananta Kshirsagar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hausabai Ananda Mali (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs) Vs Bhagubai Yesu Mali (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs Resp. No. 2 and 3 and 1C) and Ors.

Appa Ananta Kshirsagar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Baburao Kholkumbe Thr Power of Attorney Suresh Baburao Kholkumbe Vs Narayan Rajaram Patil(Since Decd. Thr.Lrs) Smt. Nalini Narayan Patil and Ors.

Smt. Muktabai Laxman Sonawane(Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Ramesh Laxman Sonawane Vs Shri. Bapu Soni Gaikwad(Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Smt. Usha Bapu Gaikwad and Ors.

Shri Gopal Shankar Shirgave Since Deed Thru L Rs Shri Aplandrao Gopal Shirgave Vs Shri Rajaram Bhau Shirgave Since Decd Thru L Rs