Dismissed¶28

Sushilabai Raghunath Shewale v. Shantaram Bhima Mahajan (Shewale) and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2025SA/178/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specific performance; suit agreement; undivided share/interest; joint family property (counsel's contention); power of attorney; witness signature; defendant not a signatory to agreement; first Appellate Court decree modification upheld; no substantial question of law; second appeal dismissed; Bombay High Court; Justice Gauri Godse; March 2025; Second Appeal No. 178 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

There is no dispute that defendant no. 3 has not signed the suit agreement; her mere awareness of the agreement is not a ground to contend that it binds her. As all three defendants hold undivided shares, no fault can be found in the first Appellate Court's modification confining the agreement's binding effect to the undivided interest of defendant nos. 1 and 2 who signed the agreement. ¶22

Sushilabai Raghunath Shewale vs Shantaram Bhima Mahajan (Shewale) and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit agreement binds defendant no. 3's undivided share in the suit property notwithstanding that she did not sign it, given that her husband signed as a witness to the agreement and she had executed a power of attorney in his name. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Since defendant no. 3 admittedly has not signed the suit agreement, no specific performance can be granted against her in respect of her undivided 1/3rd interest in the suit property.

¶26

Key takeaways

The impugned judgment of the first Appellate Court does not require any interference by this Court; the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant do not raise any question of law.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Second Appeal No. 178 of 2025, decided 4 March 2025 by Gauri Godse, J. The plaintiff-appellant challenged the first Appellate Court's modification of the trial Court's decree for specific performance, whereby the decree was confined to the undivided interest of defendant nos. 1 and 2 who had signed the suit agreement. Counsel urged that the suit property was joint family property, that defendant no. 3's husband had signed as witness and held her power of attorney, so the agreement should bind her share. The Court held that defendant no. 3 admittedly did not sign the agreement, and her mere awareness of it cannot bind her; accordingly, no specific performance can be granted against her undivided one-third interest. The contentions raised no substantial question of law, and the second appeal was dismissed.

¶1

53.178.25 sa.docx

¶2

Iresh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

SECOND APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2025

¶6

Sushilabai Rathunath Shewale .....Appellant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Shantaram Bhima Mahajan (Shewale) and ors

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Mr. Narayan Bubna Advocate for the Appellant

¶11

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶12

DATE : 4^th MARCH 2025

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

IRESH MASHAL

¶15

Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2025.03.15 12:07:50 +0530

¶16

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is preferred

¶17

by the plaintiff to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court. The trial Court had decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of the appellant. The decree was challenged by the plaintiffs by filing an appeal. The first Appellate Court modified the decree restraining it only to the undivided interest of defendant nos. 1 and 2 who had signed the agreement. Aggrieved by the said modification, this appeal is preferred by the plaintiff.

¶18

1/3

¶19

53.178.25 sa.docx

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first Appellate

¶21

Court ignored that the suit property was a joint family property and defendant no. 3’s husband had signed as a witness to the suit agreement. He submits that defendant no. 3 had also executed power of attorney in the name of her husband. He, thus submits that the suit agreement will also bind defendant no. 3’s share. He submits that this crucial aspect has been ignored by the first Appellate Court and has erroneously held that the agreement would not bind defendant no. 3’s share. He, thus, submits that the second appeal would raise the substantial question of law.

¶22

I have perused papers of the second appeal. There is no dispute that defendant no. 3 has not signed the said agreement. Mere defendant no. 3 being aware about the said agreement cannot be a ground to contend that the said agreement would also bind defendant no. 3. There is also no dispute that all the three defendants have undivided share in the suit property. Hence, considering the admitted facts that defendant no. 3 has not signed the suit agreement, no fault can be found in the modification made by the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court has rightly modified the decree by holding that the said agreement would bind the undivided interest of only defendant

¶23

2/3

¶24

53.178.25 sa.docx

¶25

nos. 1 and 2 who signed the agreement. When admittedly defendant

¶26

no. 3 has not signed the suit agreement, there cannot be any specific performance granted against her in respect of her undivided 1/3^rd interest.

¶27

Hence, the impugned judgment would not require any interference by this Court. The arguments raised on behalf of the appellant do not raise any question of law.

¶28

The second appeal is therefore, dismissed.

¶29

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶30

3/3

Sushilabai Raghunath Shewale v. Shantaram Bhima Mahajan (Shewale) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushilabai Raghunath Shewale v. Shantaram Bhima Mahajan (Shewale) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri. Virbhadra Basappa Yernale Thr. Power of Attorney Holder Shri. Durdundi Ningappa Jakate vs Shri. Aappaya Sambhya Nanjanavar (Died Thr. Legal Heris) Shrimati Nita Aappaya Nanjanavar and Ors.

Pravin Shrirang Khandare vs Nandini Urf Nanda Pravin Khandare

Mandabai @ Mandubai Kubir @ Kabir Munje vs Madhukar Laxman Munje Deceased through Legal Heir

Shivaji Kashinath Pote vs Mr Dattatray Ramkrishna Pimparkar

Union of India and Others vs Noor Mohd Shaikh alias Mohd Ibrahimm Shaikh Deceased

Sou. Sojar @Vanita Balasaheb vs Balasaheb @Anil Vasantrao Jadhav