rrpillai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 688 OF 1989 Ganpati Tavanappa Gadkari (Since deceased through LRS)

1. Smt. Neelabai Shrikant Vagne Aged : 66 years, Occ : Household R/o. Kabnur, Tal. Hatkanangale District : Kolhapur

2. Sou. Rajmanti Shrikant Vagane Aged : 61 years, Occ : Household R/o. Halondi, Tal : Hatkanangale District : Kolhapur

3. Sou. Sudhatai Sukumar Patil Aged : 56 years, Occ : Household R/o. Bambavade, Tal. : Shirala, District : Sangli

4. Sou. Pushpa Shriimandhar Naregonda Aged : 46 years, Occ : Household, R/o. Hingangaon, Tal : Hatkanangale District : Kolhapur … Appellants Versus Ilai Usman Attar deceased by LRS.

1. Smt. Ashabi I lai Attar, since deceased represented by LRS at Sr. No. 2 and 3).

2. Shri Ramzan I lai Attar, Age : Adult, Occ : Not known, Both R/o. A/P. Kumbhoj, Taluka : Hatkanangale, District : Kolhapur.

3. Mrs. Wahida Naushad Attar, Aged : Adult, Occ : Housewife, R/o. Sangrul, Taluka : Karvir, District : Kolhapur. … Respondents Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar a/w. Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire, Mr. Aniket S. Phapale i/b. Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate for the Appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Koregave a/w. Ms. Pallavi A. Karanjkar for the Respondents.

CORAM: GAURI GODSE, J.

RESERVED ON: 19th DECEMBER 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 6th MAY 2025 JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is preferred by the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees dismissing the suit for specific performance of the contract dated 19^th April 1971. The second appeal is admitted by order dated 22^nd February 1990 on the questions of law formulated in grounds (2) and (5), which read as under :

“(2) In the light of the admitted fact that the Defendant being required to execute the deed of reconveyance and in favour of the Plaintiff on or before 1980, the present suit filed in

1980 can it be held to be barred by law of limitation.

(5) Is it correct to hold that just because the party Plaintiff does not issue notice calling upon the Defendant to execute the deed of reconveyance (as in the present case) that such lapse on the part of the Plaintiff is sufficient to draw inference that the Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and can it be right to hold that the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act would not govern the facts of the present case. “

2. The suit was filed to seek specific performance of an agreement dated 19^th April 1971 and possession of the suit property. The plaintiff contended that by a registered sale deed dated 19^th April 1971, he transferred the suit property in favour of the defendant for a consideration of Rs.1000/-. According to the plaintiff, on the same day a separate agreement was executed between the parties, by which it was agreed between them that if the plaintiff repaid the consideration amount of Rs.1000/- to the defendant by the end of any Falgun month from 1896 till the end of 1902 of the marathi calendar, the defendant would reconvey the property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that every year in the month of Falgun, he requested the defendant to reconvey the property, but the defendant avoided doing so. Lastly, in 1980, in the month of Falgun, the plaintiff requested the defendant to reconvey the property; however, the defendant refused. Hence, he filed the suit.

3. The defendant filed a written statement and denied the suit claim. The defendant admitted the execution of the registered sale deed; however, he denied execution of any separate agreement for reconveyance. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff had approached him for reconveyance. He contended that, assuming without admitting execution of the agreement, the plaintiff’s claim for reconveyance was time-barred.

4. The trial court dismissed the suit. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove execution of any agreement of reconveyance, that the defendant offered to repay the amount and c