SA.37-88
- 1 -
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL No. 37 OF 1988
Bhagirathibai Gajanan Jadhav (Since )
deceased,represented through Legal Heirs )
(a) Dagadu Gajanan Jadhav, )
(b) Bhimashankar Gajanan Jadhav )
Both resident of Manchur, Taluka -
Mangalwedha, District - Solapur
)
) ...Appellants
Vs.
1. Shivdas Pralhad Mane )
2. Sitabai Nanasaheb Chavan )
3. Latabai Madhukar Javale ( Since )
deceased, represented through LRs. )
(a) Madhukar Jawale, )
(b) Santosh Madhukar Jawale, )
(c) Sachin Madhukar Jawale, )
(d) Manisha Madhukar Jawale )
All resident of Atewadi, Taluka - )
Pandharpur, District - Solapur ) ...Respondents
***
Mr. Surel Shah, for the Appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe, for the Respondents.
***
CORAM: V. M. KANADE J.
DATE : JANUARY 27, 2011
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:00 :::
SA.37-88
- 2 -
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and the respondents. The appellant is original defendant and
the respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff. This Second Appeal has
been admitted and at the time of admission, following substantial
questions of law have been framed by the Court –
Whether the document dated 8-8-1973 purported to be an
agreement of sale is unconscionable transaction and the Court
should not have exercised discretion under Section 20 of the
Specific Relief Act in favour of the plaintiff?
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant amended the grounds of
appeal and added four additional grounds which read as under-
● Whether the learned first Appellate Court could have decreed the
suit without arriving at the finding regarding readiness and
willingness which is a sine qua non for granting decree for specific
performance?
● Whether the learned first Appellate Court could have relied upon
the alleged statements of appellants made before the Tahsildar
without the same being produced by making an application under
Order 41 Rule 27 and further without the same being confronted to
the applicants?
● Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in relying upon the
alleged statement made before Tahsildar when before the trial
Court despite the opportunity it were not produced nor was any
justification/explanation offered for omission to produce the same?
● Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in relying upon the
alleged agreement of sale when the same was not proved in eyes::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:48:00 :::
SA.37-88
– 3 –
of law?
2. The brief facts are that the respondent No.1 filed the suit for
specific performance and possession of the suit property. It is case of the
plaintiff that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant
dated 8th August, 1973 for a total consideration of Rs.3,500/- in respect
of land Gat No. 182 of Shej-Babhulgaon. The said agreement was duly
registered and the defendant accepted Rs.1,100/- as an earnest amount.
According to the plaintiff, as per the mutual agreement between the
parties, the balance amount of Rs. 2,400/- was to be paid at the time of
sale-deed. One of the terms of the contract was that defendant should
obtain necessary permission of the concerned authority. According to the
plaintiff, the defendants obtained permission of the Commissioner on 5th
June, 1975. However, permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer was
not obtained on one pretext or the other and therefore, the plaintiff sent
notice dated 2nd February 1977 to the defendant but no reply was given
to the said notice by the defendant, and therefore, plaintiff filed the suit
for specific performance. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed their written-
statement. In the written-statement it was contended that they never
agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff and that the said transaction
was in fact a loan transaction. It was contended that they were in need of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:48:00 :::
SA.37-88
– 4 –
Rs.550/- for their day-to-day necessity and the amount of Rs.1,100/- was
the principal amount, plus interest in the form of Dam Duppat. It was
contended that the said agreement was executed to secure the debt. The
trial Court framed issues and both the parties adduced evidence. The trial
Court, however, held that the plaintiff had not proved the case for
specific performance and directed the defendants to pay Rs. 550/- to the
plaintiff. Against this order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in the
District Court. The District Court, however, allowed the appeal and
decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/
original defendant submitted that the Appellate Court had relied on the
documents in appeal which was not part of the record and on the basis of
the said documents which were brought on record, reversed the finding
recorded by the trial Court. He submitted that therefore, the finding
recorded by the Appellate Court was perverse. It is submitted that the
Appellate Court relied upon the alleged statement of the appellant made
before the Tahsildar, without the same being produced by making an
application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is
submitted that the trial Court had in fact observed in its order that the
plaintiff ought to have brought that evidence on record in the trial itself.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:48:00 :::
SA.37-88
– 5 –
It is, therefore, submitted that the plaintiff had not filed any application
under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code and no order was passed by the
Appellate Court, permitting the plaintiff to produce additional documents
nor were these documents proved, in accordance with the law and yet the
Appellate Court had recorded the finding against the appellants herein.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent/original plaintiff submitted that the documents which
were produced before the Appellate Court were the statements recorded
by the official authorities. He also submitted that in view of Section 80
of the Evidence Act, since there is a presumption about the said
documents which were produced as record of evidence, the Court was
duty bound to presume that the said documents are genuine.
5. There is much substance in the submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant. Perusal of the lower Appellate Court’s
judgment clearly shows that in paragraph 8 the Court has relied on an
order passed by the Additional Commissioner. He has observed as under-
“A perusal of the order passed by the Additional
Commissioner permitting division of the land shows that
block No. 182 consists of 14 hectares and 13 areas.”
Admittedly, the said document was not part of the record in the trial
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:48:00 :::
SA.37-88
– 6 –
Court. Similarly in paragraph 9, the learned Judge has observed that the
trial Court failed to note that in respect of two other persons with whom
the plaintiff has entered into similar agreements, a decree for specific
performance was passed against one of them. It is rightly submitted by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that this fact
does not form part of the record in the trial Court. Thirdly, in paragraph
10, the lower Appellate Court has relied upon the certified copy of the
statements recorded by the Tahsildar and also the statements of the
parties to the suit. The lower Appellate Court has observed as under-
“The certified copies of the statements recorded by the
Tahsildar was produced in appeal …”
6. It is evident, therefore, that firstly, no order was passed by
the Appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code. The said
documents were not proved in accordance with law. The trial Court in its
judgment has observed that “the plaintiff should have brought these
statements on record”. It is evident from the observations made by the
trial Court in paragraph 11 which reads as under-
“It is suggested to the defendant that their statements were
recorded by the Tahsildar for division of Gats. This fact has
been denied by the defendants. Had it been the real fact, then
the plaintiff ought to have produced the copy of the said
statements, which could have been the best available evidence
to the plaintiff.”
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:48:00 :::
SA.37-88
– 7 –
7. The Appellate Court has further relied on a document which
has been produced by the plaintiff along with the pursis namely sale-
deed executed by respondent No.2 Sitabai of her one-fourth share on 9th
May 1983 for consideration of Rs.875/-. It is an admitted position that
the said document is not part of record of the trial Court and therefore,
the plaintiff in appeal could not have produced the said document by
filing a pursis and the Appellate Court should not have relied on the said
document. This being the position, in my view, the lower Appellate
Court has recorded the finding against the appellant herein though said
documents were not part of the record and therefore, this Court is
entitled to interfere with the order passed by the lower Appellate Court,
on the basis of substantial question of law raised by the appellant. The
judgment and order passed by the District Court in Civil Appeal No. 553
of 1982 is, therefore, set aside and quashed. Second Appeal is
accordingly allowed and disposed of.
[ V. M. KANADE J.]
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:48:00 :::