Shri. Arun S/O. Bhauraji Pisar v. Shri. Narayan S/O. Ramaji Ronghe

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No.190 of 2016 [Arun Bhauraoji Pisar Vs. Narayan Ramaji Ronghe] ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Mr. S. D. Ingole, Adv., for the appellant.

Mr. D. R. Bhoyar, Adv., for respondent.

----

CORAM

:

A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.

DATE :

30th June, 2017 The appellant is the original plaintiff who had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 19th March, 2006. It was alleged that by this agreement, the respondent had agreed to sell Class-II land admeasuring 2 hectares 41 Are for a consideration of Rs. 6,00,000-00. The trial Court held that the aforesaid agreement was not proved. The appellate Court reaffirmed the said finding and dismissed the appeal. Shri Ingole, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Earnest amount of Rs.50,000-00 was paid to the respondent. According to him, as the land was not converted to

Class-I, no date was mentioned for execution of the saledeed. On 8th February, 2007, the respondent had been called upon to execute the sale-deed; but he remained absent. He, therefore, submitted that both the Courts erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance. Perused the impugned judgments.

The trial Court on consideration of the evidence led by the parties found that the agreement at Exh.40 was silent with regard to the date when the sale-deed was to be executed. It further found that on Exh.40, there was a substantial gap between the signature of the defendant and the last line of contents of said agreement. On that count, the said agreement was doubted. The appellate Court found that on 8th February, 2007, the land continued to remain as Class-II land and it could not have been sold without necessary permission. It further noted that the date of the agreement was not mentioned therein and the stamp paper was shown to be purchased on 13th January, 2006. The stand of the defendant that he was in need of money for the education of his son was held to be proved on the basis of the defendant's evidence. Considering the findings recorded by both the Courts, it can be seen that the appellant had failed to prove that it was an Agreement of Sale. The various

circumstances taken into consideration by both the Courts indicate that this finding is based on preponderance of probabilities. I do not find that there is any perversity in these findings. No substantial question of law arises. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Judge ||hedau|