Sonali Mane 35-SA-693-2018.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 693 OF 2018 Ramakant Ramchandra Thakur … Appellant Versus Shri.Atmaram Balaram Thakur And Ors. … Respondents Mr. Ramesh Karale for Appellant. None for Respondents. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 29 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C. : 1) The Appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 11 October 2017 passed by Adhoc District Judge, 2 Raigad-Alibag allowing Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2010 and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23 November 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pen in Regular Civil Suit No. 117 of 1997. The suit was filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff seeking specific performance of a document titled as an agreement, which is shown to have been executed on 24 January 1990. The Trial Court had initially decreed the suit directing Respondents/Defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, has however, reversed the decree of the Trial Court. 2) I have heard Mr. Karale, the learned counsel appearing for Appellant and have considered the submissions canvassed by him. ___Page No. 1 of 2 ___ 29 September 2026 MANE SONALI DILIP Digitally signed by MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2026.10.01 14:25:38 +0530 Sonali Mane 35-SA-693-2018.docx I have gone through the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. I have also gone through a copy of the Agreement dated 24 January 1990, which is placed on record by the learned counsel. 3) After going through the copy of the Agreement dated 24 January 1990, it becomes difficult to believe that the same is an "agreement for sale". The Agreement dated 24 January 1990 is merely branded as a "Kararpatra". Otherwise, the same actually effects sale of the land on receipt of consideration of Rs.17,700/-. The document records that the entire amount of Rs.17,700/- is paid to the Defendants, that the land is sold, that the Plaintiff has acquired the ownership in the land and that the Plaintiff is put in possession of the land. Thus, going by the Agreement dated 24 January 1990, there was no contractual obligation which remained to be performed by the Defendants and of which, specific performance could have been sought by the Plaintiff. The Trial Court had grossly erred in ignoring the nature of arrangement between the parties effected vide Agreement dated 24 January 1990. The First Appellate Court has rightly held that there was nothing in the Agreement dated 24 January 1990, which is required to be specifically performed. 4) The First Appellate Court has also taken into consideration the conduct of the Plaintiff in maintaining silence for seven years and six months. Considering the above position, in my view, no substantial question of law is involved in the Appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] ___Page No. 2 of 2 ___ 29 September 2026