V M B Homes, Partnership Firm, Thr. Its Partner Chandrasen Gayaprasad Yadav and Other vs Sau. Ranjana Milind Dhale — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

V M B Homes, Partnership Firm, Thr. Its Partner Chandrasen Gayaprasad Yadav and Other vs Sau. Ranjana Milind Dhale — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant (original defendant); second appeal dismissed and parties directed to bear their own costs.

Issue for consideration

What was the agreed sale consideration under the executed agreement - Rs.12,00,000/- or Rs.14,56,500/-? +2 more

Court's answer

This Court endorses the factual finding of both lower Courts that the agreed sale consideration was Rs.12,00,000/- (and not Rs.14,56,500/-, the market value printed in the agreement), and finds that neither Court erred in interpreting the agreement on the sale consideration.

Ratio / Principle

The contention that payment beyond the stipulated date makes the agreement non-binding on the defendant/vendor is rejected: the defendant in fact received the sale consideration beyond the stipulated date, and in transactions of sale of immovable property time is normally not of the essence.

Key takeaways

As a further ground for rejecting the vendor's contention, the defendant failed to establish that time was of the essence of the contract.ratio¶13
On the findings recorded (agreed consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-; delayed payment does not release the vendor), the second appeal is dismissed, the judgment stating in its own (grammatically defective) words that no substantial question of law is disputed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench - Second Appeal No. 104/2024 (Rohit W. Joshi, J.; decided 28/04/2025). Specific-performance suit by respondent Sau. Ranjana Milind Dhale against appellant VMB Homes (partnership firm, original defendant), decreed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court; second appeal dismissed. This Court endorses the lower courts' finding that the agreed sale consideration was Rs.12,00,000/- and not Rs.14,56,500/- (the latter being merely the market value printed in the agreement). It rejects the vendor-appellant's plea that payment of the consideration on 10.05.2012 against the stipulated date of 29.11.2011 released him from the agreement: the consideration was in fact received despite the delay, time is normally not of the essence in sales of immovable property, and the defendant failed to establish that time was of the essence. The appeal was dismissed on the stated footing that no substantial question of law was disputed; parties to bear their own costs. No statute or precedent is cited in the judgment.

2025:BHC-NAG:4546

1 40 SA 104.24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO. 104/2024

(VMB Homes, Partnership Firm thr. its Partners Vs. Sau. Ranjana Milind Dhale)

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

- - - - Mr. A.A. Mardikar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. P.S. Kadam, Advocate for respondent.

CORAM: ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : 28/04/2025.

Heard.

This appeal is filed by original defendant. The respondent had filed a suit for specific performance of contract which is decreed by learned Trial Court and the said decree for specific performance of contract is confirmed by learned First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the original defendant. The only contention between the parties is as to whether the agreed sale consideration as per agreement is Rs.12,00,000/- or Rs.14,56,500/-. It is pertinent to note that the fact of execution of agreement is not in dispute. Perusal of the agreement demonstrates that the market value of the property is mentioned as Rs.14,56,500/-. None the less, both parties had agreed that the sale consideration would be Rs.12,00,000/-. Both learned Courts have recorded a finding of fact that agreed sale consideration was Rs.12,00,000/- and not Rs.14,56,500/- as contended by the

2 40 SA 104.24

defendant. Having perused the agreement as also findings recorded by both learned Courts, I do not find that learned Courts have committed any error in interpretation of the agreement as regards to agreed sale consideration.

Learned counsel for defendant/appellant contends that as per agreement, the entire sale consideration was to be paid on or before 29.11.2011, however the same is paid on 10.05.2012. Learned counsel contends that since the payment is made beyond the stipulated period, the agreement is not biding on the defendant i.e. vendor. The said contention is rejected for the reasons that defendant has received amount of sale consideration beyond stipulated date and also on the ground that normally in transaction of sale of immovable property, time is not essence of the contract and the defendant has failed to establish that time as essence of contract.

In view of the findings recorded above, second appeal is dismissed as not disputed any substantial question of law.

The parties to bear their own costs.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

Gohane

Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/05/2025 14:44:36