Page 1

                          NON- REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   4433   OF 2014  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17533 of 2010)

Smt. Leela Krishnarao Pansare and others .....Appellants

        Versus

Babasaheb Bhanudas Ithape and others                 …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in First  Appeal  No.  

1138 of 2009 by the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad on 14.1.2010,  

the appellants have approached this Court by way of this appeal.

1

Page 2

3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as  

under :

The appellants had filed a suit against the present respondents for a  

declaration to the affect that the agreement to sell entered into between  

the appellants and the respondents should be cancelled and the appellants  

should be put in  possession of  the land in question,  which had been  

agreed to be sold in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 17.08.1995.  

Certain undisputed facts in the case are to the effect that the aforesaid  

agreement  to  sell  had been entered into and in  pursuance  of  the said  

agreement, possession of the land in question had been handed over to  

the  respondents  upon a  payment  of  Rs.  1  lac,  which was  part  of  the  

consideration.  The consideration for sale was Rs.10 lacs.  The remaining  

amount of Rs.9 lacs was to be paid in  two installments of Rs. 4 lacs and  

Rs. 5 lacs each.  Rupees 4 lacs were to be paid by the respondents by the  

end of 30.01.1996 and the remaining Rs.5 lacs were to be paid at the time  

of execution of the sale deed.  

 It  was  also agreed that  before execution of  the sale  deed the  

appellants  had  to  get  an  entry  “Deosthan  Inam”  removed  from  the  

revenue record.  The land in question was shown as “Deosthan Inam”  

2

Page 3

and the said  entry was to be deleted as it  was said on behalf of the  

appellants that the land in question was not “Deosthan Inam” land and  

needful was to be done by the appellants for removal of the said entry.   

It is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs.1 lac  had been paid by the  

respondents  at the time of agreement to sell  was entered into and the  

appellants had not done anything to get entry showing “Deosthan Inam”  

in respect of the land in question removed from the revenue record.

The suit filed by the appellants had been dismissed on 06.09.2008  

and being aggrieved  by dismissal of the said suit, First Appeal No. 1138  

of 2009 had been filed in the High Court by the present appellants.  The  

said appeal has been dismissed and therefore, this appeal has been filed  

challenging validity of the judgment delivered in First Appeal No.1138  

of 2009.  

4. We had heard  the learned counsel appearing for the parties and  

had also perused the relevant record.

5. In our opinion, the High Court should have discussed the  evidence  

in  detail,  but  somehow  the  evidence  has  not  been  properly  

3

Page 4

discussed or re-appreciated by the High Court while dismissing the  

appeal

6. Upon perusal  of  the  impugned judgment  delivered  by the  High  

Court, it is clear that the entire sale consideration had not been paid  

but at the same time it is also an admitted fact that the appellants  

did not get the entry with regard to the “Deosthan Inam” deleted.  

There is no discussion about the efforts made by the appellants for  

getting  the  said  entry  deleted.   The  High  Court  has  also  not  

discussed the consequences of non deletion of the said entry and  

the  efforts  made  by  the  appellants  for  not  getting  it  deleted.  

Similarly,  there  is  no  definite  finding  as  to  how  much  

consideration was paid and at what time or stage.

7. Even the amount payable by the respondent towards purchase price  

had not been paid in full to the appellants and the said thing has not  

been properly discussed.

8. We find that the relevant evidence has neither been discussed nor  

been properly appreciated by the High Court.  It was very much  

necessary for the High Court to decide whether the appellants and  

the respondents had performed their respective duties, which they  

4

Page 5

had to perform in pursuance of the agreement with regard to sale of  

the land in question.

9. In our opinion, without appropriate appreciation of the evidence,  

the High Court should not have dismissed the appeal and therefore,  

we allow the present  appeal and remand the matter to the High  

Court so that after hearing the concerned parties, the High Court  

would take a fresh decision.  As the agreement with regard to sale  

of the land had been executed before several years, we hope that  

the High Court would hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously  

as possible.

10. The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside with no order as  

to costs.

            …………................................J.  (ANIL R. DAVE)

…...........................................J.         (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi April 07, 2014

5