//
you're reading...
legal issues

Declaration suit that the agreement of sale dt. 17.08.1995 stood cancelled possession was delivered under it – Trial court dismissed the suit as well as High court also – High court failed to notice that the agreement is old one, except one lakh nothing was paid – for non-removing the entry in revenue record as inam what will be followed as per the terms of agreement not considered – High court totally failed to considered so many aspects – Apex court set aside the orders of lower courts and remanded the case to High court for fresh disposal =Smt. Leela Krishnarao Pansare and others …..Appellants Versus Babasaheb Bhanudas Ithape and others …..Respondents= 2014 ( April. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41396

 Declaration suit that the agreement of sale dt. 17.08.1995 stood cancelled  possession was delivered under it – Trial court dismissed the suit as well as High court also – High court failed to notice that the agreement is old one, except one lakh nothing was paid – for non-removing the entry in revenue record as inam  what will be followed as per the terms of agreement not considered – High court totally failed to considered so many aspects – Apex court set aside the orders of lower courts and remanded the case to High court for fresh disposal =

 

 In our opinion, the High Court should have discussed the  evidence  in

      detail, but somehow the evidence has not been properly discussed or re-

      appreciated by the High Court while dismissing the appeal

 

 

   6. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court,  it

      is clear that the entire sale consideration had not been paid  but  at

      the same time it is also an admitted fact that the appellants did  not

      get the entry with regard to the “Deosthan Inam” deleted.  There is no

      discussion about the efforts made by the appellants  for  getting  the

      said entry deleted.   The  High  Court  has  also  not  discussed  the

      consequences of non deletion of the said entry and the efforts made by

      the appellants for not getting it deleted.   Similarly,  there  is  no

      definite finding as to how much consideration was  paid  and  at  what

      time or stage.

 

 

   7. Even the amount payable by the respondent towards purchase  price  had

      not been paid in full to the appellants and the  said  thing  has  not

      been properly discussed.

 

 

   8. We find that the relevant evidence has neither been discussed nor been

      properly appreciated by the High Court.  It was  very  much  necessary

      for  the  High  Court  to  decide  whether  the  appellants  and   the

      respondents had performed their respective duties, which they  had  to

      perform in pursuance of the agreement with regard to sale of the  land

      in question.

 

 

   9. In our opinion, without appropriate appreciation of the evidence,  the

      High Court should not have dismissed  the  appeal  and  therefore,  we

      allow the present appeal and remand the matter to the  High  Court  so

      that after hearing the concerned parties, the High Court would take  a

      fresh decision.  As the agreement with regard to sale of the land  had

      been executed before several years, we hope that the High Court  would

      hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

 

 

  10. The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside with  no  order  as  to

      costs.

 

2014 ( April. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41396

ANIL R. DAVE, DIPAK MISRA

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4433 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17533 of 2010)

 

 

Smt. Leela Krishnarao Pansare and others …..Appellants

 

Versus

Babasaheb Bhanudas Ithape and others …..Respondents

 
J U D G M E N T

 
1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

 
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in First Appeal No. 1138 of
2009 by the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad on 14.1.2010, the appellants
have approached this Court by way of this appeal.
3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are
as under :
The appellants had filed a suit against the present respondents for a
declaration to the affect that the agreement to sell entered into between
the appellants and the respondents should be cancelled and the appellants
should be put in possession of the land in question, which had been agreed
to be sold in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 17.08.1995. Certain
undisputed facts in the case are to the effect that the aforesaid agreement
to sell had been entered into and in pursuance of the said agreement,
possession of the land in question had been handed over to the respondents
upon a payment of Rs. 1 lac, which was part of the consideration. The
consideration for sale was Rs.10 lacs. The remaining amount of Rs.9 lacs
was to be paid in two installments of Rs. 4 lacs and Rs. 5 lacs each.
Rupees 4 lacs were to be paid by the respondents by the end of 30.01.1996
and the remaining Rs.5 lacs were to be paid at the time of execution of the
sale deed.
It was also agreed that before execution of the sale deed the
appellants had to get an entry “Deosthan Inam” removed from the revenue
record. The land in question was shown as “Deosthan Inam” and the said
entry was to be deleted as it was said on behalf of the appellants that the
land in question was not “Deosthan Inam” land and needful was to be done by
the appellants for removal of the said entry.
It is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs.1 lac had been paid by the
respondents at the time of agreement to sell was entered into and the
appellants had not done anything to get entry showing “Deosthan Inam” in
respect of the land in question removed from the revenue record.
The suit filed by the appellants had been dismissed on 06.09.2008 and
being aggrieved by dismissal of the said suit, First Appeal No. 1138 of
2009 had been filed in the High Court by the present appellants. The said
appeal has been dismissed and therefore, this appeal has been filed
challenging validity of the judgment delivered in First Appeal No.1138 of
2009.
4. We had heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and had
also perused the relevant record.
5. In our opinion, the High Court should have discussed the evidence in
detail, but somehow the evidence has not been properly discussed or re-
appreciated by the High Court while dismissing the appeal
6. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court, it
is clear that the entire sale consideration had not been paid but at
the same time it is also an admitted fact that the appellants did not
get the entry with regard to the “Deosthan Inam” deleted. There is no
discussion about the efforts made by the appellants for getting the
said entry deleted. The High Court has also not discussed the
consequences of non deletion of the said entry and the efforts made by
the appellants for not getting it deleted. Similarly, there is no
definite finding as to how much consideration was paid and at what
time or stage.
7. Even the amount payable by the respondent towards purchase price had
not been paid in full to the appellants and the said thing has not
been properly discussed.
8. We find that the relevant evidence has neither been discussed nor been
properly appreciated by the High Court. It was very much necessary
for the High Court to decide whether the appellants and the
respondents had performed their respective duties, which they had to
perform in pursuance of the agreement with regard to sale of the land
in question.
9. In our opinion, without appropriate appreciation of the evidence, the
High Court should not have dismissed the appeal and therefore, we
allow the present appeal and remand the matter to the High Court so
that after hearing the concerned parties, the High Court would take a
fresh decision. As the agreement with regard to sale of the land had
been executed before several years, we hope that the High Court would
hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
10. The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside with no order as to
costs.

 
……………………………………..J.

(ANIL R. DAVE)

 
…………………………………
…….J.

(DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi
April 07, 2014

 
———————–
5

 

 

 

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,758,121 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,854 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com