Dismissed

Shankar Nathulal Sharma v. Navnath Haridas Shinde

Bombay HC3 Apr 2024IA/1692/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the second appeal challenging decrees for specific performance, holding that the appellant's contentions regarding property correction and co-ownership required re-appreciation of facts, which is impermissible under Section 100 CPC. No substantial question of law was found.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shankar Nathulal Sharma vs Navnath Haridas Shinde — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date: 2024.08.14 14:22:55 +0530

¶2

28-sa-114-2024-ia-1692-2024.doc

¶3

varsha

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2024

¶5

WITH

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1692 OF 2024

¶7

¶8

SECOND APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2024

¶9

Shankar Nathulal Sharma … Appellant/Applicant vs. Navnath Haridas Shinde … Respondent

¶10

Mr. D.J. Shejul, for Appellant/Applicant.

¶11

Mr. Ashay Gajbhiye, for Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 18^th JULY 2024

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This Second Appeal is filed by the original defendant challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees granting specific performance of the suit agreement. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff has illegally made a correction in the suit agreement by referring to the suit property as SS-3 instead of Flat No. SS-1. He further submits that though the suit property stands in the name of the appellant, even the appellant’s wife has

¶15

Page no. 1 of 3

¶16

28-sa-114-2024-ia-1692-2024.doc

¶17

an interest in the suit property. Hence, the suit could not have been decreed for specific performance. He thus submits that the Second Appeal would require consideration on the point that correction was illegally made by the plaintiff in the suit agreement.

¶18

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. Perused the papers. The suit agreement is a registered document. The defendant had filed his written statement and admitted the execution of the agreement. The part payment made towards the consideration amount is not disputed. Both the Courts have accepted the terms of the agreement to be correct and valid. The payment towards part consideration amount is a cheque payment, which is also accepted by both the Courts. The contentions with regard to the appellant’s wife being co-owner of the property are not accepted by both the Courts. The defendant has admitted the execution of the agreement and also accepted payment towards the part consideration amount. There is no dispute on the terms and conditions of the agreement. Thus, both the Courts are right in accepting the plaintiff’s case for specific performance.

¶19

I do not find any illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded by both courts for granting specific performance of the suit

¶20

Page no. 2 of 3

¶21

28-sa-114-2024-ia-1692-2024.doc

¶22

agreement. The decree for specific performance issues necessary directions regarding depositing the balance consideration amount and necessary permission to be obtained from CIDCO for completing the terms and conditions of the suit agreement.

¶23

I do not find any substance in the ground argued on behalf of the appellant. The arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant would require re-appreciation of the facts on record, which is not permissible under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

¶24

The second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Interim Application No. 1692 of 2024 is dismissed as infructuous.

¶25

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶26

Page no. 3 of 3

Shankar Nathulal Sharma v. Navnath Haridas Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shankar Nathulal Sharma v. Navnath Haridas Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Shalan v. Chavan and Anr. Vs Shri. Siddheshwar Dattu Jadhav and Ors.

Vittal Bhagoji Teli and Ors. Vs the Asst. Charity Commissioner, Worli, Mumbai and Ors.

Kumar Krishna D. Pathak Vs Cuffe Castle Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Shobha Vasant Bhoir Thr. Poa, Satpal Singh Jaimalsingh Chawla and Ors. vs Smt. Soni @ Vandana Gurumkhdas Jagiasi and Ors.

Rohan Construction Thr. Prop. Mr.Bhibhishan Venkatrao Gaikwad and Other vs Smt. Krishnabai Pandit Bhondve and Others

Manisha @ Bharati Dhanaji Kolekar and Anr. vs Shri. Shivaji Kashinath Lavte and Ors.