Dismissed¶14

Shri Sachin S/O Vijayrao Sumbhate v. Smt. Seema Wd/O Manikrao Vaidya

Bombay HC13 Feb 2026SA/94/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal dismissed; specific performance of oral agreement of sale; plaintiff proved agreement but failed to prove exact terms and consideration of Rs.2,64,000/-; possession letter Exh.42 showed consideration of only Rs.12,000/-; defendant proved mutual cancellation on refund of Rs.1,80,000/- (receipt Exh.36, ledger Exh.37, cheque credit Exh.38); First Appellate Court's finding based on appreciation of evidence, not interferable in second appeal; no substantial question of law; Nagpur Bench; RCS No.139 of 2013; RCA No.342 of 2018.

What did the court decide?

In a suit for specific performance of contract based on an oral agreement, the plaintiff must prove both that the parties entered into an agreement and the exact terms of the agreement. ¶11

Shri Sachin S/O Vijayrao Sumbhate vs Smt. Seema Wd/O Manikrao Vaidya — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proved the oral agreement of sale and its exact terms, including the pleaded total sale consideration of Rs.2,64,000/-. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

In a suit for specific performance of contract based on an oral agreement, the plaintiff must prove both that the parties entered into an agreement and the exact terms of the agreement.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Since the defendant denied the agreement yet pleaded its cancellation, the fact that the plaintiff had entered into the agreement with the defendant's husband is undisputable.

¶11

Key takeaways

The evidence on record is not sufficient to conclude that the agreement was arrived at for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,64,000/-; the plaintiff has failed to prove this.ratio¶11
Against the plaintiff's specific case of consideration of Rs.2,64,000/-, the possession letter at Exhibit 42 relied upon by him records the agreed consideration as Rs.12,000/- only, and the plaintiff offered no explanation for this discrepancy.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dismissed the original plaintiff's Second Appeal arising out of Regular Civil Suit No.139 of 2013 (specific performance of an alleged oral agreement of sale dated 27.08.2008 with the defendant's husband, late Manikrao, over four plots bearing Nos.226, 227, 240 and 241 at Village Welahari). The Court held that although the plaintiff proved that an agreement of sale was entered into, he failed to prove its exact terms and conditions or payment of the pleaded consideration of Rs.2,64,000/- — the possession letter at Exhibit 42 on which he relied recorded the agreed consideration as only Rs.12,000/-, unexplained. The defendant duly proved that the agreement was mutually cancelled upon refund of Rs.1,80,000/- (receipt Exh.36, ledger Exh.37, cheque credit Exh.38); the First Appellate Court's finding to that effect was a finding based on appreciation of evidence and could not be interfered with in a Second Appeal. No substantial question of law arose; the Second Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

SA 94.24.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.94 OF 2024

¶5

APPELLANT :- Shri Sachin S/o. Vijayrao Sumbhate Ori. Plaintiff On R. A. Aged about 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Ayodhya Apartment, Flat No.A12, Shivaji Complex, Mankapur, Nagpur. .. VERSUS .. RESPONDENTS :- Smt. Seema Wd/o Manikrao Vaidya Ori. Plaintiff On R. A. Aged about 63 years, Occ. Business, R/o.55(A), NIT Commercial Layout, Trimurti Nagar, Ring Road, Nagpur.

¶6

Mr. Shailesh S. Sitani, Advocate for Appellant.

¶7

Mr. Ashish A. Bhide, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 13.02.2026

¶9

J U D G M E N T :

¶10

Heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the respective parties.

¶11

The present second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 09.11.2023 passed by the learned District Judge-5 in Regular Civil Appeal No.342 of 2018, whereby the

¶12

learned Court has reversed judgment and decree dated

¶13

SA 94.24.odt

¶14

¶15

27.04.2018 passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.139 of 2013.

¶16

The appellant in the present appeal is the original plaintiff and respondent is the original defendant. Parties will be referred as “plaintiff” and “defendant” hereinafter.

¶17

The plaintiff had filed aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had entered into agreement of sale with respect to the suit property which comprises of four plots bearing Nos.226, 227, 240 and 241 at Village- Welahari, Khasara No.62/1 and 63/1, each admeasuring 600 Square Feet each for a consideration of Rs.2,64,000/- on 27.08.2008 with husband of the defendant late Manikrao, who expired on 10.08.2010. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has paid entire sale consideration to the husband of plaintiff. The plaintiff filed suit contending that the defendant assured to execute the sale deed, but ultimately avoided to do so. It will be pertinent to mention that at places, the plaintiff has also made averment in the plaint that the agreement was entered into with the defendant. However, it seems that his case is that the

¶18

SA 94.24.odt

¶19

¶20

agreement was entered into with husband of defendant and that the defendant is looking after business of the husband after his demise.

¶21

The defendant filed written statement denying the agreement, as also receipt of sale consideration of Rs.2,64,000/-. However, the defendant also stated that the parties had arrived at a settlement after negotiations and accordingly defendant had refunded amount of Rs.1,80,000/to the plaintiff through a cheque dated 27.12.2012 and that the plaintiff received the said amount in full and final settlement of the claim with respect to suit property and another plot.

¶22

The learned Trial Court has decreed the suit for specific performance. The learned Trial Court has predominantly relied upon the possession letter at Exhibit 42 and cash receipts dated 19.09.2008 and 19.10.2008 at Exhibits 44 and 43 to arrive at finding that the plaintiff had proved the oral agreement.

¶23

Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, the defendant preferred first appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No.342 of

¶24

SA 94.24.odt

¶25

¶26

The learned First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged oral agreement and that the defendant had proved her case of cancellation of agreement by receiving sum of Rs.1,80,000/-.

¶27

Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree passed in the first appeal, the original plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal.

¶28

Mr. Sitani, learned Advocate for the appellant draws attention to the possession receipt at Exhibit 42 and contends that although the agreement is an oral agreement, the contents of possession letter clearly establish that plaintiff had entered into agreement of sale with defendant’s husband and that he had paid the entire sale consideration as agreed. He contends that the learned First Appellate Court has grossly erred in holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the agreement with respect to the receipt of amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. He further contends that the said amount was received against some other transaction and not against cancellation of the suit agreement as alleged by defendant.

¶29

SA 94.24.odt

¶30

¶31

The learned First Appellate Court has referred to the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff and has held that the evidence was not consistent with the pleadings. It is held that since case of oral agreement is set up by plaintiff, it is essential that the evidence must be in accordance with the pleadings. The learned First Appellate Court has also accepted the case of defendant regarding cancellation of agreement in view of the receipt at Exhibit 36 and ledger at Exhibit 37 regarding receipt of amount of Rs.1,80,000/- by the plaintiff from the defendant.

¶32

I have perused the judgments delivered by both the learned Courts as also the pleadings and depositions alongwith relevant exhibited documents, particularly exhibits 42, 36, 37 and 38. At the outset it must be stated that in order to succeed in a suit for specific performance of contract based on oral agreement, the plaintiff must prove that the parties had entered into an agreement as also the exact terms of agreement arrived at between the parties. In the case at hand, although the defendant denied the agreement, she has also come up with a case of cancellation of the agreement. It

¶33

SA 94.24.odt

¶34

¶35

is therefore, clear that the fact that plaintiff had entered into agreement with husband of defendant is undisputable. Having held so, it must be also stated that the evidence on record is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the agreement was arrived at for total sale consideration of Rs.2,64,000/- The plaintiff has failed to prove the same. As against the specific case of plaintiff that the total agreed sale consideration was Rs.2,64,000/-, in the possession letter at Exhibit 42 relied upon by him, the agreed consideration is mentioned as Rs.12,000/-, the plaintiff has not offered any explanation for this. Perusal of possession letter will indicate that consideration of Rs.12,000/- only is paid by plaintiff.

¶36

Apart from the above, perusal of the receipt at Exhibit 36 will indicate that the plaintiff has admitted that the agreement with respect to the suit properties was mutually terminated upon receipt of consideration payable to him for cancellation of the agreement. The plaintiff has issued receipt accepting cheque of Rs.1,80,000/-. The cheque is duly credited in the account of plaintiff as can be seen from the document at Exhibit 38. It will be pertinent to state that

¶37

SA 94.24.odt

¶38

¶39

in the right, top corner of Exhibit 37 reference is made to Plot No.123 only and not to the four plots, which are subject matter of the suit. However, the acknowledgment in the middle portion of the page makes a reference to the aforesaid Plot No.123 as also to the four suit plots. Thus, the finding by the learned First Appellate Court with respect to cancellation of agreement upon refund of Rs.1,80,000/- is a finding based on appreciation of evidence. The said finding cannot be interfered with in a Second Appeal. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate documentary evidence which confirms cancellation of agreement and also inconsistency with respect to agreed sale consideration as per the case set up by the plaintiff and the contents of the alleged possession letter.

¶40

In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, although the plaintiff has proved that he had entered into an agreement of sale with respect to the suit property, he has failed to prove the exact terms and conditions of the agreement as also his contention regarding payment of Rs.2,64,000/-. Likewise, the defendant has duly

¶41

SA 94.24.odt

¶42

¶43

proved that the agreement was mutually cancelled.

¶44

In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Second Appeal. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶45

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

¶46

Tanmay...

Shri Sachin S/O Vijayrao Sumbhate v. Smt. Seema Wd/O Manikrao Vaidya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sachin S/O Vijayrao Sumbhate v. Smt. Seema Wd/O Manikrao Vaidya

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

Madhavrao S/O Balaji Nimbalkar (Dead) Thr Lrs vs the Arbitrator (Additional Commissioner), Nagpur and Ors.

Central India Madhyawarti Bahuudeshiya Shakari Sanstha Ltd, Nagpur Thr. Secretary Rajeev Hadap vs Gramin Vikas Kukkut Palan Shakari Sanstha Ltd, Pachgaon, Nagpur Thr. Secretary Dr. Gulabrao Bhoyar

Sandesh Deoraj Gaikwad vs Smt. Kiran Wd/O Dnyanedeo Somkuwar and Others

Pandhari S/O Ramchandra Pakhamode and Others vs Noorchand S/O Ramchandra Pakhamode (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Nalini Nurachand Pakhamode and Others

Anuprit W/O Akshay Vishe (Anuprit D/O Ashokrao Pachpor) vs Akshay S/O Bhaskarrao Vishe

Smt. Venubai Wd/O. Leeladhar Parate and Others vs Shri. Anand S/O. Jagannath Gulhane and Others