ANIL CHHABILDAS CHAUDHARI Vs. MAMATA SUDHAKAR SANANSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal is filed against judgment and decree dtd. 8/8/2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhusaval in Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2020 and judgment and decree dtd. 24/11/2023 passed by the learned District Judge -3, Bhusawal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2022. The appellant in the appeal is the original defendant against whom decree for specific performance of contract is passed in the civil suit. Simultaneously, the counter claim of the defendant seeking declaration that the agreement in question was a false and fabricated document, was also rejected. As stated above, the appeal preferred by defendant is to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Court.

(2.) The present respondent had filed suit for specific performance of contract with respect to Shop Block Nos. G-14, G15, G-16 and G-19 ad-measuring 102.07 sq.mtrs. situated at Survey No. 147/01/01 in final plot No. 3-A/02 at Bhusaval. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was in need of money for contesting election and in order to augment funds, he wanted to sell the suit shops immediately. According to the plaintiff, the defendant contacted one Tanaji Shantaram Patil, a property dealer, who was a friend of husband of the plaintiff. She claims that the said Tanaji Patil came with a proposal for purchase of the suit shops and accordingly, a meeting of plaintiff, her husband, Tanaji Patil and the defendant was held wherein the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit shops for a total consideration of Rs.60,70,000.00. The total sale consideration of Rs.60,70,000.00 came to be paid to the defendant on 19/10/2019 by online transfer under two transactions of Rs.30,35,000.00 each. The plaintiff claims that he had paid stamp duty of Rs.3,64,200.00 on the draft of the said deed, which was prepared by one Mr. B. G. Chavan, stamp vendor. The plaintiff also contends that the sale deed came to be executed by her and the defendant by putting their signatures and thumb impression. The husband of the plaintiff and broker Tanaji signed the sale deed as attesting witnesses and the sale deed was lodged for registration with the Sub-Registrar on 30/10/2019 along with registration fee of Rs.31,400.00. The contention of the plaintiff is that despite having received the entire sale consideration and also having executed the sale deed as aforesaid, the defendant avoided to visit the office of Sub-Registrar for completing the formalities regarding registration of sale deed. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant gave evasive replies whenever inquiries were made with respect to registration of sale deed. The plaintiff issued a letter dtd. 7/2/2020 calling upon the defendant to complete the formalities regarding registration of sale deed and to deliver physical possession of the suit shops. The plaintiff has stated that SubRegistrar has also issued two communications to the defendant on 13/2/2020 and 9/6/2020, calling him to complete the registration formalities, however, the defendant did not do the needful. In the circumstances, the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract. The prayer in the suit is for directions to the defendants to complete the formalities regarding registration of the sale deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and for delivery of possession of the suit shops.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement and counter claim in the matter vide Exhibit 13 on 28/7/2020. The defendant has come up with a case that he was in need of money during the election period for his personal and household expenses. He claims that the broker Tanaji Patil and husband of the plaintiff had friendly relations with him and when the broker Tanaji Patil came to know about financial need of the defendant, he made an offer to the defendant to give him hand loan. He states that in such circumstances, taking unfair advantage of the fact that the defendant was busy with elections, the broker, Tanaji Patil obtained his signature and thumb impression on a blank paper. He has denied that he had entered into any agreement with plaintiff with respect to the suit shops. He claims that on receiving letter dtd. 7/2/2020 from the plaintiff, he realized that the plaintiff, her husband, Tanaji Patil-Broker and some unknown persons had practiced fraud on him and misused the paper bearing his signature and thumb impression to create a false document of sale deed with respect to suit shops. In the light of above pleadings, he sought a declaration that the sale deed with respect to the suit shops is a false and fabricated document and that the document is not a document of sale but a document for hand loan.