Dismissed

Shri. Balaso Ganapati Varekar v. Shri. Neminath Tatoba Magdum and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2023WP/5268/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed four writ petitions challenging a Trial Court order impounding an agreement to sell. The Court held that as per Explanation (i) to Article 25, the document, being an agreement to sell with transferred possession, is deemed a conveyance, justifying the impounding order under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the Trial Court's order impounding the document; writ petitions dismissed.

Shri. Balaso Ganapati Varekar Vs Shri… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

38-wp5266-2019+++.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5266 OF 2019

¶5

Balaso Ganapati Varekar… Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Savkar Raoso Magdum & Ors.… Respondents

¶8

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2023.12.05 17:59:26 +0530

¶9

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5267 OF 2019

¶10

Balaso Ganapati Varekar… Petitioner
V/s.

¶11

Dada Alias Anna Bharama
Magdum & Anr.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5268 OF 2019

¶14

Balaso Ganapati Varekar… Petitioner
V/s.
Neminath Tatoba Magdum & Ors.… Respondents

¶15

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5269 OF 2019

¶16

Balaso Ganapati Varekar… Petitioner
V/s.

¶17

Indumati Appaso Magdum & Ors.… Respondents

¶18

Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay A. Kulkarni for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in all
the writ petitions.

¶19

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶20

DATED:DECEMBER 5, 2023

¶21

¶22

38-wp5266-2019+++.doc

¶23

P.C.:

¶24

1.The petitioner/original plaintiff is challenging order passed
by the Trial Court impounding agreement dated 13 December
2006 produced by the petitioner before the Trial Court.

¶25

2.The petitioner is original plaintiff who filed suit for specific
performance. For seeking such relief, the petitioner relied on the
agreement to sell. On perusal of the clauses 14, 15 and 19, it
appears that the document in question is agreement to sell. Under
clause (1) of the said document, the defendant has handed over
possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

¶26

3.According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the
document in question is development agreement. On overall
reading of the document, and in particular clauses 14, 15 and 19,
it appears that the document contains a specific clause that on
property being converted into non-agricultural property, the
defendant agreed to execute sell deed in favour of the petitioner or
the person as indicated by the petitioner. In view of such clause,
the document in question is agreement to sell and, therefore, in
view of Explanation (i) of Article 25 it is to be treated as
conveyance.

¶27

4.Explanation (I) to Article 25 states that for the purpose of
said Article, where in case of agreement to sell and immovable
property the possession of any immovable agreement is
transferred, then such agreement to sell shall be deemed to be
conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall be levied accordingly. On
consideration of the agreement, in my opinion, the Explanation (i)

¶28

¶29

38-wp5266-2019+++.doc

¶30

to Article 25 is attracted. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly
issued a direction for impounding the document. Hence, no
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called
for.

¶31

5. All four writ petitions accordingly stand dismissed. No costs.

¶32

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶33

Shri. Balaso Ganapati Varekar v. Shri. Neminath Tatoba Magdum and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Balaso Ganapati Varekar v. Shri. Neminath Tatoba Magdum and Ors.

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

Dharmendra Maryappa Sawant and Ors. Vs Sharad Laxman Chavan and Ors.

Manojkunj Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Thr. Authorised Mr. Arun Deshpande Vs Smt. Vidya Ramesh Kantabet and Ors.

Tanaji Antu Pawar (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Vs Kashinath Hari Pawar (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Kamalabai Kashinath Pawar (Deceased) and Ors.

Ashirwad Nice Developers Vs Smt. Snehalata Ganpat Dalvi and Ors.

Shri. Balaso Ganapati Varekar Vs Shri. Savkar Raoso Magdum and Ors.

Shri. Balaso Ganapati Varekar Vs Shri. Dada @ Anna Bharama Magdum and Anr.