Dismissed¶24

Shri Kantilal Sarjerao Jathar v. Smt Sunanda Ramesh Kulkarni

Bombay HC21 Jul 2025SA/247/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC, Second Appeal No. 247/2024, decided 26-11-2025 by N. J. Jamadar, J.; appellant Kantilal Sarjerao Jathar v. respondent Sunanda Ramesh Kulkarni; money-decree Rs. 5,00,000/- (Special Civil Suit No. 53/2018; Regular Civil Appeal No. 08/2021 dismissed 08-12-2023 by District Judge, Baramati); defence of Rs. 5,00,000/- cheque receipts as part consideration for purchase of property from defendant's father-in-law versus registered sale deed acknowledging entire consideration Rs. 30,15,000/-; concurrent findings upheld; registered instrument prevails over unregistered document; no substantial question of law; appeal and Interim Application No. 11677/2024 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below are impeccable. ¶23

Shri Kantilal Sarjerao Jathar vs Smt Sunanda Ramesh Kulkarni — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeal raises any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below are impeccable.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

It is trite that a registered instrument prevails over an unregistered document; even on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities the Courts below took a correct view of the matter.

¶23

Key takeaways

No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration; hence the second appeal does not lie.ratio¶23
In the face of the registered instrument, under which the vendor acknowledged receipt of the entire consideration of Rs. 30,15,000/-, the defence of receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards consideration put forth by the appellant was not sustainable.ratio¶22
In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, the Interim Application does not survive and also stands dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal No. 247 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), decided on 26 November 2025 by N. J. Jamadar, J. Appeal by judgment-debtor Kantilal Sarjerao Jathar against the judgment and decree dated 08 December 2023 of the District Judge, Baramati in Regular Civil Appeal No. 08/2021, whereby his appeal against the Trial Court decree in Special Civil Suit No. 53/2018 (directing payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to Sunanda Ramesh Kulkarni) was dismissed. The appellant-defendant had admitted receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- through cheques, claiming it was paid towards part consideration for purchase of an immovable property from the father-in-law of the defendant. Both Courts below concurrently found that the suit property (deed at Exhibit 35) had already been sold under a registered instrument to the plaintiff, the vendor acknowledging receipt of the entire consideration of Rs. 30,15,000/-. Held: the concurrent findings are impeccable; it is trite that a registered instrument prevails over an unregistered document, and on the preponderance of probabilities the Courts below took a correct view; no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration. Second Appeal dismissed; Interim Application No. 11677 of 2024 also dismissed as it does not survive.

¶1

48 SA 247.24.DOC

¶2

SAINATH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 247 OF 2024

¶4

Kantilal Sarjerao Jathar Versus

¶5

..Appellant

¶6

Sunanda Ramesh Kulkarni …Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11677 OF 2024 IN

¶9

SECOND APPEAL NO. 247 OF 2024

¶10

Mr. Sharad V. Kulkarni a/w Shilpa Kadam, for the appellant.

¶11

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 26^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.

¶14

The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment and decree dated 08^th December, 2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Baramati, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 08/2021 whereby, the Appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 53/2018 directing payment of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs), came to be dismissed.

¶15

The appellant - defendant had admitted the receipt of the

¶16

ARUNRAMCHANDRASANKPAL Digitally signed byARUNRAMCHANDRASANKPALDate: 2025.11.2919:38:17 +0530

¶17

sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) through Cheques. It

¶18

was the defence of the appellant that, the said amount was paid

¶19

1/2

¶20

48 SA 247.24.DOC

¶21

towards part consideration for purchase of an immovable property from the father-in-law of the defendant.

¶22

Both the Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact that, the suit property in relation to which the deed at Exhibit35 was purportedly executed, was already sold under a registered instrument to the plaintiff. Under the said registered sale deed, the vendor had acknowledged the receipt of entire consideration of Rs. 30,15,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Fifteen Thousand). Thus, in the face of registered instrument, the defence of receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) towards consideration putforth by the appellant was not sustainable.

¶23

The concurrent findings of fact are impeccable. It is trite a registered instrument prevails over an unregistered document. Even on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities, the Courts below have taken a correct view of the matter. No question of law, much less, substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶24

The Second Appeal thus stands dismissed.

¶25

In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, the Interim Application does not survive, and also stands dismissed.

¶26

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶27

2/2

Shri Kantilal Sarjerao Jathar v. Smt Sunanda Ramesh Kulkarni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kantilal Sarjerao Jathar v. Smt Sunanda Ramesh Kulkarni

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

The Custodian Vs Extension of Agreement With M/S Iss Security Solution of Property at E-162 Greater Kailash-Ii(Ffsl)

Madhukar Sadashiv Kokate vs Mr. Dashrath Vitthal Shitole and Ors.

Vaishnavi Caim Sambuddha vs Alok Nath Sambuddha

Shri Kantilal Sarjerao Jathar vs Smt Sunanda Ramesh Kulkarni

Shri Kantilal Sarjerao Jathar vs Smt Sunanda Ramesh Kulkarni

Shri Kantilal Sarjerao Jathar vs Smt Sunanda Ramesh Kulkarni