265 of 1989.
426 of 2004 whereby the High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellants herein and affirmed the judgment and order dated 03.10.2002 passed by the 8th Additional District Signature Not Verified Judge, Satara in R.C.A. No.9/1996, which arose out Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2017.12.05 172850 IST Reason of judgment decree dated 29.11.1995 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Satara in R.C.S. No.
In the second place, learned companynsel attacked the findings of the High Court recorded on three pleas raised by the appellant in the second appeal and companytended that all the three pleas deserve to be upheld in appellants favour.
Initially, there were two appellants.
The respondent had paid Rs.3,000/ by way of earnest money to the appellants.
In order to appreciate the companytroversy, which lies in a narrow companypass, few relevant facts need mention hereinbelow.
The sale deed was to be executed within 6 months.
By order dated 28.10.2013 passed by this Court, the appeal against appellant No.1 was held abated.
The respondent filed a suit being Civil Suit No.
Parties adduced evidence.
Felt aggrieved, the appellants defendants filed second appeal in the High Court of Bombay being A. No.
The respondent plaintiff felt aggrieved and filed first appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.
The Trial Court, by judgment decree dated 29.11.1995 in R.C.S. No.265/1989, dismissed the suit.
By judgment decree dated 03.10.2002, the VIIIth Additional District Judge, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment decree of the Trial Court and decreed the respondents suit.
426/2004.
By impugned judgment decree, the High Court dismissed the defendants second appeal, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court by the defendants.
The sale companysideration was fixed at Rs.10,000/ .
The appellants companytested the suit by filing their written statement.
Since the dispute arose between the parties and numbersale deed was executed, the respondent filed a suit to seek specific performance of the said agreement against the appellants in relation to the suit land.
9/1996 in the Court of VIIIth Additional District Judge, Satara.
265/89 in the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Satara against the appellants for specific performance of the two agreements, dated 11.10.1982 Ex.48 and 11.04.1983 Ex.68 to purchase 1/12 th share of the appellants in the land which belonged to them situated at Eastern potion of Gat.
Learned companynsel for the appellant defendant No.2 while assailing the legality and companyrectness of the impugned judgment argued that, firstly, the respondents suit was misconceived inasmuch as numberspecific performance in relation to the agreement in question was permissible in the light of bar created by Section 31 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act hereinafter referred to as the Act which, according to learned companynsel, prohibited any transfer of holding and, more particularly, a fragment such as the one in the case at hand.
The same was the case with the trial Court.
No.594/1 admeasuring 2 hectares 18 Acre situated at Malegaon Taluka and District Satara hereinafter referred to as suit land .
Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhari, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Varun Mathur, learned companynsel for the respondent.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed by the defendants against the final judgment and order dated 24.07.2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Second Appeal No.
The appellants are the defendants whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in a suit out of which this appeal arises.
