1 17-sa 109.2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2023 ( RAMESH S/O GOPALRAO MUNDRE VS BABARAO AMRUTRAO HATKAR (DIED THROUGH LRS) ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Ms. S.W.Deshpande, Advocate for appellant. Mr. C.A.Babrekar, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. FEBRUARY 17, 2026 1) The appellant who is the original defendant is aggrieved by the concurrent decrees for specific performance of contract passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Morshi in R.C.S.No.105/2012 dated 28/10/2015 and the learned District Judge-6 Amravati in R.C.A.No.26/2016 dated 20/10/2022. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract based on agreement of sale dated 21/10/2011 by virtue of which the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to him for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. Execution of the agreement is not in dispute. It is the case of the defendant that the agreement was in fact a camouflage for a loan transaction between the parties whereunder the defendant had obtained hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for the treatment of his mother. Both the learned Courts have concurrently held that the defence of transaction being a loan transaction in essence is not proved by the defendant. While arriving at such conclusion, the learned Courts have recorded that the alleged ailment from which the mother KOLHE 2026:BHC-NAG:2848 2 17-sa 109.2023.odt was suffering is not mentioned, the name of doctor under whom the mother was taking treatment or the hospital where she was admitted is not stated and that there is no evidence on record in the form of bills, medical prescriptions etc. to accept the defence of defendant being in need of money for treatment of his mother. Apart from this, the learned Courts have found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff has issued legal notice for specific performance and has filed the suit on 30/07/2012 that is within short proximity of the date of execution of agreement which is 20/11/2011. 2) In terms of the agreement, the parties had agreed to execute the sale deed on 31/05/2012. The plaintiff contends that he was present in the office of the sub registrar on the said date, however, the defendant did not turn up and therefore, sale deed could not be executed. The plaintiff immediately issued a notice dated 01/06/2012 to the defendant asking him to complete the sale transaction before 15/06/2012. It needs to be stated that the defendant had issued notice dated 30/05/2012 to the plaintiff contending that the actual transaction between the parties was a loan transaction. The plaintiff disputed this contention vide reply notice dated 05/06/2012 and has immediately filed suit for specific performance of contract on 30/07/2012. The findings with respect to readiness and willingness are arrived at by both the learned Courts having due regard to the conduct of the plaintiff in taking immediate steps for filing of the suit. On a specific query being made to the learned counsel for the applicant/original defendant, she fairly stated that the balance sale consideration was deposited by the plaintiff within the period stipulated by the learning trial Court. KOLHE 3 17-sa 109.2023.odt 3) In view of above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal, the Second Appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) KOLHE