Priyanka 38-SA0-222-2024.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.222 OF 2024 Sitaram Malji Khare ...Appellant V/s. Satyabhama Punjaram Shinde ...Respondent ________________ Mr. Nikhil G. Hire a/w Mr. Praveen Ahire for the Appellant. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 28 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1) The Second Appeal is filed challenging concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and Appellate Court in a Suit filed for specific performance. The Trial Court has decreed the Suit for specific performance by Decree dated 17 December 2022 passed in Special Civil Suit No.35 of 2019 directing Plaintiff to pay balance consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- to the Defendant and directing the Defendant to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the Suit Property in the name of the Plaintiff. The Decree of the Trial Court is confirmed in Appeal by the District Court, Malegaon by dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2023 preferred by the Appellant/Defendant. 2) I have heard Mr. Hire, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. Page No. 1 of 3 28 August 2026 PRIYANKA MADHAVRAO KALE Digitally signed by PRIYANKA MADHAVRAO KALE Date: 2026.09.01 10:52:30 +0530 Priyanka 38-SA0-222-2024.docx 3) In the present case, an Agreement for sale was executed by Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff on 4 July 2013. The agreed consideration under the Agreement was Rs.8,17,000/- and Plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Defendant. Since, permission of Collector was required for the transaction of sale, an Application was made by the Defendant himself to the Collector seeking permission for sale transaction. It appears that, Collector's Office took some time in processing the permission. In the meantime, Plaintiff paid amount of Rs.21,000/- on 31 October 2014, Rs.51,000/- on 12 March 2015, Rs.2,00,000/- on 31 May 2015 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 12 April 2016. Defendant has received to amount of Rs.6,71,000/- from the Plaintiff. The permission was ultimately granted in the year 2018 and Plaintiff requested Defendant to execute the sale. Since, Defendant failed to execute the Sale Deed, Suit for specific performance was required to be filed. 4) Considering the above conduct, it is difficult to believe the story of Defendant that, Plaintiff was not ready and willing to execute the Sale Deed. It is sought to be contended by Mr. Hire, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that there was gross delay in securing permission of Collector for sale transaction and that it was necessary for the Plaintiff to prove that during this entire period of five years, he was always ready and willing to complete the sale transaction. In the present case, Plaintiff has paid several amounts to Defendant during the pendency of the permission Application. The last payment was made on 12 April 2016. The Defendant filed Affidavit at Exhibit-44 Page No. 2 of 3 28 August 2026 Priyanka 38-SA0-222-2024.docx before the Collector, confirming his intention to sell the land. He never withdrew Application for permission till the same was granted in the year 2018. This would indicate that, parties were desirous of completing the sale transaction right till the year 2018. Immediately, after permission was issued, Plaintiff made an approach to the Defendant requesting for execution of sale. In my view, therefore, both the Courts have rightly recorded factual findings of readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff to complete the sale transaction. 5) In view of the above discussion, no substantial question of law is involved in the Appeal. 6) The Second Appeal is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 28 August 2026