Renuka 8-SA(ST)-28791-2025.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 28791 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12433 OF 2025 Shakil Ahmed Khan ...Applicant/Appellant V/s. Kazi Tauhid Ahmed Saeed ...Respondent ________________ Mr. Tarun Kumar Sinha for Applicant/Appellant. Ms. Sandhya A. Mailagir for Respondent ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 24 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1) By this Appeal, the Appellant/Defendant has challenged concurrent findings recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Courts in a suit for specific performance. The Trial Court has decreed the suit by directing Plaintiff to deposit balance consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- in the Court within 30 days with a direction to the Defendant to execute conveyance and handover possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff. 2) I have heard Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Ms. Mailagir, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. Page No. 1 of 3 24 August 2026 2026:BHC-AS:34941 Renuka 8-SA(ST)-28791-2025.docx 3) Before the Trial Court, Appellant/Defendant raised a defence that the transaction contemplated between the parties was that of a mortgage. He contended that an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-was paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant towards friendly loan. He also contended that the Agreement for sale dated 30 June 2010 was an outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. Thus, before the Trial and the Appellate Courts, what was involved was a mere factual inquiry as to whether the Plaintiff had extended handloan to the Defendant and whether the transaction effected between the parties was that of a mortgaged or sale. The Trial Court has conducted the factual inquiry by assessing the evidence on record and has rejected the defence of the Defendant. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are concurrently upheld by the Appellate Court. There is no dispute to the position that the Agreement for sale does not refer to creation of mortgage as such. The conclusion drawn by the Trial and Appellate Courts that the transaction agreed between the parties is that of sale therefore does not warrant interference. 4) It is sought to be contended before me that the market value of the suit property at the relevant time was Rs. 20,00,000/- whereas the same is agreed to be sold only for Rs. 8.5 lakh. It is well settled position that mere sale of property below the market value cannot be a reason for declaring the sale to be void. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that parties intended execution of a mortgage. 5) Considering the above position, in my view, no substantial question of law is involved in the Appeal. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, noting would Page No. 2 of 3 24 August 2026 Renuka 8-SA(ST)-28791-2025.docx survive in Interim Application No. 12433 of 2025 and the same is accordingly disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 24 August 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 25/08/2026 16:34:42