MAHADEO SITARAM NAVALE Vs. BAPUTAO RAMCHANDRA NAVALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by the original defendants to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court for specific performance of an agreement executed by the defendants in favour of Ankush Navale. After the execution of the agreement, Ankush expired. The respondents are the original plaintiffs. Plaintiff no. 1 is the father of Ankush, plaintiff no. 2 is the widow of Ankush and plaintiff nos. 3 to 5 are the children of Ankush and plaintiff no. 2. The second appeal was admitted on 10/1/1994 on the following substantial questions of law.

(2.) The agreement for sale was executed on 27/5/1977 (hereinafter referred to as"the suit agreement"). The plaintiffs contended that the suit agreement was executed by the defendants, i.e. the present appellants, for the sale of their property, i.e. Gat No. 497 (hereinafter referred to as"the suit property"). The trial court dismissed the suit. In an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the suit is decreed, and the defendants are directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit property.

(3.) The appellants filed an application in this appeal for permission to produce additional evidence. It is the appellants' case that plaintiff nos. 2 to 5, i.e. the widow and children of deceased Ankush, executed and registered a deed of cancellation of the suit agreement. The cancellation document was executed on 23/1/2020. Hence, the appellants filed an application to bring the document of cancellation on record as additional evidence. By order dtd. 27/2/2025, this court allowed the application to produce additional evidence, and the appellants were permitted to produce the original document dtd. 23/1/2020 before this court.