Dismissed¶26

Shri Dilip Krishnaji Joshi v. Durgabai Mahdeo Puranik Since Deseased Thorogh Legal Heirs

Bombay HC3 Sept 2025SA/457/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specific performance suit (Agreement dated 12.12.1989) dismissed by Civil Judge, Panvel (21.06.2017); first appeal dismissed by District Judge, Panvel, Raigad (09.11.2023) on concurrent findings that the agreement was a determinable development agreement, not an agreement for sale. Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.) held no substantial question of law arose and dismissed Second Appeal No. 457 of 2025 on 19.11.2025; Interim Application No. 10611 of 2025 disposed. Keywords: specific performance, development agreement, determinable, concurrent findings, substantial question of law, second appeal, Panvel, Raigad.

What did the court decide?

There is no infirmity in the decrees passed by the Courts below. ¶24

Shri Dilip Krishnaji Joshi vs Durgabai Mahdeo Puranik Since Deseased Thorogh Legal Heirs — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2-SA-457-2025.DOC

¶2

Arun Sankpal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

SECOND APPEAL NO. 457 OF 2025

¶6

Dilip Krishnaji Joshi Versus

¶7

..Appellant

¶8

Durgabai Mahdeo Puranik Since Deceased …Respondents Through Legal Heirs & Ors

¶9

WITH

¶10

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10611 OF 2025

¶11

ARUN

¶12

RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶13

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.11.21 19:29:22 +0530

¶14

¶15

SECOND APPEAL NO. 457 OF 2025

¶16

Adv Pallavi Kulkarni, with Anant Vadgaonkar, for the Appellant.

¶17

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 19^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶18

P.C.:

¶19

Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

¶20

This Second Appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 9^th November 2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Panvel, Raigad, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Appeal against a judgment and order dated 21^st June 2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Panvel, dismissing the Suit for specific performance of the contract contained in the Agreement dated 12^th December 1989, came to be dismissed.

¶21

1/2

¶22

2-SA-457-2025.DOC

¶23

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Courts below have misconstrued the nature of the Agreement executed in favour of the Appellant. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that the Agreement in question of which specific performance was sought was not an Agreement for Sale. The Agreement was essentially for the development of the suit property. The Agreement being a determinable, the Suit for specific performance of the Agreement was not tenable.

¶24

There is no infirmity in the decrees passed by the Courts below.

¶25

No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for determination..

¶26

The Second Appeal stands dismissed.

¶27

In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Interim Application No. 10611 of 2025 also stands disposed.

¶28

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶29

2/2

Shri Dilip Krishnaji Joshi v. Durgabai Mahdeo Puranik Since Deseased Thorogh Legal Heirs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Dilip Krishnaji Joshi v. Durgabai Mahdeo Puranik Since Deseased Thorogh Legal Heirs

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

Ms. D G Lands Developers Private Limited vs Muthyala Venkata Brahama Vara Prasad

Prapti Pritesh Parab vs State of Maharashtra

Maaz Ismail Patel vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Thr the Designated Officer and Anr.

Raghunath Kachru Kolhe vs Bhilu Shankar Jadhav

Virendra Madhukarrao Deshpande vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary Housing Dept. of and Ors.

Yakub Baig Trust Panvel Erstwhile Mominpada Masjid Yakub Baig Trust, through Chief and Anr. vs the Assistant Charity Commissioner Alibag and Anr.