1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2008 (Smt. Shantabai Nemichand Varma & Anr. vs. M/s. Sharda Enterprises through Ganesh B. Sahu) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 03, 2009. Heard Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel holding for Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel for the appellants – original defendants and Shri Kasat, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – original plaintiff. The appellants are defendants No. 2 & 3 in Special Civil Suit No. 34 of 1986 (renumbered as Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 1990). Defendant No.1 was the original owner who entered into an agreement for sale with Respondent No.1 – plaintiff. The said defendant No.1 is shown as Respondent No.2 (deceased in present Second Appeal). This Court on 7.1.2009 in view of the grievance made by Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel that the appellants were entitled to a plot ad measuring 1500 sq. feet in addition to sale consideration, issued notice before admission. 2 Accordingly, on last occasion, Shri Kasat, learned counsel for respondent No.1 had shown willingness to give plot of 1500 sq. feet to the appellants. Today Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants are not willing to accept said offer and he has been instructed to argue the appeal on merits. On merits Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel has stated that interpretation of document is a substantial question of law and according to him, the agreement for sale i.e. Exh. 64 is not a contract as defined in Section 2(b) of Indian Contract Act because it is nowhere signed by Respondent No.1 – plaintiff. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High court in the case of S.M. Gopal Chetty vs. Ram @ Natesan, reported at AIR 1998 Madras 169. He has invited attention of this Court to discussion therein as contained in paras 5, 6 & 7. Shri Kasat, learned counsel has not disputed that interpretation of document may be a substantial question of law. However, according to him, there was no such question raised either before the trial Court or before first appellate Court. He points out that the suit was decreed by the trial Court and that decree has been maintained by lower 3 appellate Court. According to him, defendant No.1, who entered into an agreement never disputed and denied the existence of agreement and therefore, burden is cast upon him to execute the sale deed. He invites attention to discussion on this aspect by the trial Court. He, therefore, states that the issue sought to be raised by the subsequent purchasers is without any merit. It is apparent that the appellants before this Court have purchased the property on 1.3.1989 from the original defendant No.1 – deceased. The said defendant in his written statement or then during trial, never contended that Exh. 64 was a unilateral document and as such there was no agreement between the parties. The perusal of document shows that on 7.4.1984, defendant No.1 accepted amount of Rs.25,000/- as earnest and then on 7.5.1984 he accepted further amount of Rs.10,000/-. It further appears that later on he accepted amount of Rs.32,000/- and granted extension to Respondent No.1 till 15.3.1986. All these facts are not in dispute. In these circumstances, the contention that there was no agreement between the parties or there was no contract between the parties, cannot be accepted. Para 5 of the judgment of the Madras High Court 4 shows that there two documents were produced before the trial vide Exh. A1 and A2. Both the documents were signed by the defendants and first one was found to be a blank paper. It was further noticed that there was no agreement on the part of the plaintiff to pay the balance of sale consideration within the period mentioned in the said document and take the sale deed. In relation to other document i.e. Exh. A2, it was found that there was agreement again on the part of plaintiff to pay balance amount within the particular period and the Hon'ble Division Bench, therefore, concluded that from the terms of these documents, it was clear that it was agreement by defendants No.1 & 2 only whereby they agreed to do something in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the amounts. There was no corresponding obligation cast upon the plaintiff. It is to be noticed that such a question is being raised for the first time before this Court by the subsequent purchaser. The original owner has not understood the agreement in the sense in which the appellants are trying to project it. His understanding of the agreement has already come on record. Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel has contended that the subsequent purchasers have invested in plot and the improvement made by them 5 has not been taken into account. It is further contended that they are entitled to be compensated for such improvement. The purchasers are subsequent to filing of suit and hence the arguments are misconceived. I, therefore, find no substantial question of law arising in this Second Appeal. It is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. At this stage, Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel states that the status quo operating in the matter should be continued for a further period of eight weeks so as to enable the appellants to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court. The request is being strongly opposed by Shri Kasat, learned counsel. However, considering the circumstances, I am inclined to continue said interim order till 15th April 2009. The said order shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. JUDGE *GS.