RUKHMINIBAI MARUTI PACHANKAR Vs. PRAKASH NIVRUTTI PACHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the sides.

(2.) The appeals arise from the following set of facts :

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hon would submit that the trial court was grossly in error in refusing specific performance on the sole ground that the respondent had already agreed to sell and had actually sold the suit property to respondent No. 2 Balbhim Sonba Tagad. Even the appellate court failed to appreciate such a lapse on the part of the trial court in refusing specific performance for this peculiar reason. In fact, such conduct of the respondent Prakash clearly demonstrates a collusion between him and respondent No. 2 Balbhim. He would further submit that in fact even respondent No. 2 Balbhim had also filed the suit seeking specific performance and both these suits were decided by the trial court on the same day and therefore it is not that the suit property was already sold by the respondent and was not available for being sold to the appellant. Both the courts below, therefore, have not exercised the discretion vested in them within the prescribed parameters of law and the observations and the conclusions drawn by them are perverse and arbitrary and give rise to substantial questions as indicated in the appeal memos.