1 sa104.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.104/2026 Nilkanth S/o Tanba Pazare and another ..V/s.. Ranjana W/o Udhaorao Dhabarde and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Sarang S. Malode, Counsel for the appellants. Mr. Shreyak Kakde with Mr. Amol D. Patil, Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATED : 15.9.2026. Heard. 2. The appellants are the original defendants. The plaintiff Sou. Ranjana Dhabrde had filed suit for specific performance. The suit was decreed and the appeal filed by the defendants is dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed this second appeal. According to the appellants, the substantial question of law arises in this appeal is as follows:- “Even though the plaintiff had not amended the plaint and prayed for cancellation of sale deed from defendant No.2 both the Courts below held in favour of the plaintiff, whether it amounts to perversity in the judgments of both the Courts below?” 3. The plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement to sell on 26.06.2003. The defendants agreed to sell the suit property for the consideration of Rs.30,000/- per acre and total consideration was Rs.1,35,000/-. Defendants received an amount of Rs.25,000/- on the date of agreement as earnest money before the witnesses. The plaintiff agreed to pay the 2026:BHC-NAG:12499 2 sa104.2026 remaining amount of consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- at the time of execution of the sale deed. The defendants agreed to execute the sale deed within one month from the date of agreement. The suit property was recorded as Class-II land and the defendants were required to convert the same as Class-I land. 4. The defendants were in extreme need of money and requested the plaintiff to pay Rs.5,000/- which was paid by her. It is further stated that the plaintiff was ready and willing to execute the sale deed and she was ready with balance consideration to perform her part of contact. The plaintiff requested the defendants to convert the occupancy class of the land from Class-II to Class-I and execute the sale deed. The defendants every time assured the plaintiff to get the conversion done and execute the sale deed. But as the defendants failed to execute the sale deed plaintiff issued notice to the defendants thereby requesting to execute the sale deed. After receiving the notice, the defendants visited the plaintiff’s place and assured to execute the sale deed within time. However, the defendants started to tell the people that price of the suit property has increased and the plaintiff should pay it at an increased rate. The plaintiff again send a notice to the defendants and the defendants denied about such an increase in the price and assured the plaintiff to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff again issued the notice on 31.10.2005 to the defendant No.1 who submitted the reason of his wife and also assured to convince her shortly. However, due to inaction on the part of the defendants, plaintiff again 3 sa104.2026 issued one notice on 24.12.2005 along with the draft of the sale deed thereby calling upon the defendants to confirm the date and timing of the registration of sale deed within 15 days from the receipt of notice. The defendant No.1 received the notice but denied the fact of execution of the agreement. As the defendants failed to execute the sale deed the plaintiff has filed the suit. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents has stated that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands. She has suppressed the material facts from the Court and, therefore, is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance of the contract. It is the defence of the defendants that defendant No.2 Kalpana Motiram Burbure purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 17.09.2005 for the consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- and the name of defendant No.2 is also recorded in the record of rights. The plaintiff has not challenged the said sale deed. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is the case of defendant No.1 that he had taken hand-loan of Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked him to put his thumb impressions on the blank stamp papers. The defendant put the same in good faith and received the amount. The defendant paid the said amount in his house in presence of Sudhakar Kumbhare. There was no sale transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff is neither an Agriculturist nor she has taken any permission from the competent authority for purchasing the agricultural land. 7. During the pendency of suit the defendant 4 sa104.2026 No.2 has sold the suit property to defendant No.3. The suit proceeded ex parte against defendant No.3 and it was decreed. 8. The appeal was filed and the Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellants has stated that after filing of written statement when the plaintiff came to know that the property was purchased by defendant No.3, she has added defendant Nos.3 but has not amended the prayer for cancellation of said sale deed and possession of suit property from said person. 10. Heard both sides and perused the record. 11. On perusal of record, it appears that after receiving notices the appellant Nilkanth, original defendant No.1, has sold the suit property to his own wife i.e. defendant No.2 and it is observed by the trial Court that this transaction is not permissible under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, as the transaction was not during the pendency of suit and the transfer of property is after issuance of notice by plaintiff Section 52 will not come in picture. But Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act will be attracted. The intention of defendant No.1 to deceive the plaintiff is thus proved. The Appellate Court has rightly observed that it was fraudulent transaction. To avoid the execution of sale deed the defendant No.1 has executed the sale deed and transferred the property to defendant No.2, who is his wife, even before filing of suit and mutated her name. Defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1 and she has purchased the property in her maiden name 5 sa104.2026 which proves the dishonest intention of the Defendant No.1 and is rightly considered by both the Courts below. 12. The transfer of property by executing the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 is a fraudulent transaction. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.2 has executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3, hence Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act will be attracted. 13. The trial Court and the Appellate Court have considered these aspects and come to the conclusion that the transaction was with intention to avoid the execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff though she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract. The trial Court and the Appellate Court have rightly passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff. As there is no substantial question of law involved in this case, appeal stands dismissed. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) Tambaskar. Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 23/09/2026 10:12:20