46.SA.122.2023 Judgment.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO.122 OF 2023 APPELLANT Original Plaintiff (On R.A.) :- Sau. Vandana w/o Ramesh Sahastrabuddhe, aged about 48 yrs, Occ. Household, r/o c/o Vinod s/o Ramrao Gaikwad, Plot No.1, Bhende Layout, Swawalambinagar, Nagpur-440 022. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENT Original Defendant (On R.A) :- Sau. Jayashree w/o Anil Sable, aged about – 49 yrs, Occ. Household, r/o Plot No.73, Behind Kusumtai Wankhede Sabhagruh, Kachipura, New Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. V.G. Bhamburkar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. N.Y. Lade, Advocate for Respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 27/03/2026 JUDGMENT : 1. The present second appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No.309 of 2011 and judgment and decree dated 03.10.2019, passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.266 of 2016 (Old First Appeal No.99 of 2015). 2026:BHC-NAG:5041 46.SA.122.2023 Judgment.odt 2 2. The appellant in the present appeal is the original plaintiff, who had entered into an agreement of sale with respondent/original defendant on 20.07.2010, inter alia agreeing to purchase the suit property for a consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-. Out of which, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement and further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid on 04.08.2010. Payment of consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- is not in dispute. The target date for execution of sale deed was 20.11.2010. The agreement records that the defendant/vendor was required to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Nagpur Improvement Trust, No Objection Certificate from the Co- operative Society within whose layout the plot was situated and to complete other formalities for execution and registration of sale deed. The record indicates that the defendant had obtained No Objection Certificate from the Society on 16.08.2010 vide Exh.49 and that she has also got her name mutated in the relevant records on 20.10.2010. As regards No Objection Certificate from the Nagpur Improvement Trust, the Government Resolution dated 08.11.2006 was relied upon by the defendant to contend that no objection from the NIT was not required. 3. The learned trial Court has observed that the defendant 46.SA.122.2023 Judgment.odt 3 had taken steps for completing the sale transaction within the stipulated time frame and that the plaintiff had failed to produce documentary evidence on record to show availability of funds to make payment of balance sale consideration at the relevant time. It is found that the plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence in the form of bank statement, passbook or other records to show financial capability. The learned Court has also observed that as against 20.11.2010 which was the date stipulated for execution of sale deed, notice for specific performance was issued by the plaintiff after a period of three months on 21.02.2011. 4. It must also be stated that according to the plaintiff, she has sold one immovable property and was to make payment of balance sale consideration from the sale proceeds thereof. However, the said sale deed was not placed on record and likewise, evidence with respect to sale proceeds received from the alleged sale transaction are also not filed on record. The learned trial Court therefore refused to grant decree for specific performance and instead granted a decree for refund of amount of sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the defendant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 5. The learned First Appellate Court has also re-appreciated 46.SA.122.2023 Judgment.odt 4 the evidence and concurred the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court. 6. Admittedly, no documentary evidence to show financial capability is placed on record and the claim that the funds were augmented from sale of another property is also not established. The so called sale deed or evidence regarding receipt of amount pursuant thereto is also not filed. Both the learned Courts have recorded findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence, which cannot be said to be perverse by any stretch of imagination. 7. In view of the aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal. Second appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. The learned Advocate for the appellant states that an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- is deposited by the appellant with this Court. The record does not indicate any such entry regarding deposit of amount. In the event, the appellant has deposited any amount with this Court, the same shall be refunded to the appellant along with accrued interest, if any. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) C.L. Dhakate