LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-125

SHANTABAI BHIMA SANGLE Vs. YAMUNABAI WALIBA KEDAR

Decided On October 01, 2008
SHANTABAI BHIMA SANGLE Appellant
V/S
YAMUNABAI WALIBA KEDAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th November, 1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nashik dismissing the appellants' appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1990.

(2.) Appellant No. 1 is the widow and appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are the son and daughter respectively of Bhima Laxman Sangle (since deceased). By an agreement of sale dated 13th April, 1976, Bhima agreed to sell to the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") 4 acres from the eastern side of gat No. 438 of village Dodi Budruk, District Nashik (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") for a consideration of Rs. 21,000/-. There was exchange of notices between Bhima and the respondent in the year 1976. However, nothing was done by the respondent till the year 1984. On 3rd September, 1984, the respondent issued a notice to the appellants claiming specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 13th April, 1976. On 7th September, 1984, the appellants replied the said notice denying the contentions therein and refusing to execute the sale deed. On 24th January, 1985, the respondent filed a suit against the appellants for specific performance of the agreement for sale. Respondents Nos.2 to 8, who were the co-owners of gat No. 438, were also joined as party defendants to the suit in order to obviate any objection from them. Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 however did not contest the suit and are also absent in the appeal.

(3.) After consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court passed a decree for specific performance. Appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the order dated 13th November, 1997 only with a small modification directing the appellants to apply to the Collector for permission for sale and directing execution of the sale deed after the grant of permission. That decision is impugned in this appeal.