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

2-SA-457-2025.DOC Arun Sankpal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 457 OF 2025 Dilip Krishnaji Joshi ..Appellant

Versus

Durgabai Mahdeo Puranik Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs & Ors

...Respondents

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10611 OF 2025 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL IN ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.11.21 19:29:22 +0530 SECOND APPEAL NO. 457 OF 2025 Adv Pallavi Kulkarni, with Anant Vadgaonkar, for the Appellant.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

19th NOVEMBER 2025 P.C.:

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2.

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

1/2

2-SA-457-2025.DOC 3.

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.

4.

There is no infirmity in the decrees passed by the Courts below. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for determination..

5.

The Second Appeal stands dismissed.

6.

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

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 2/2