High Court of Gujarat
R/Second Appeal No. 443 of 2026 (arising out of Special Civil Suit No. 10 of 2017 / Old No. 7/2011).
August 18, 2026
Mr. Justice Maulik J. Shelat.
Josarfal Vala Bhima (Josarfal Vala Khima) (Appellant / Original Defendant) vs. Legal Heirs of Late Shri Ramesh Motiram Jeswani & Ors. (Respondents / Original Plaintiffs).
"Disclaimer: This article is a simplified summary of the court judgment prepared for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or an official legal document. For complete facts and full context, please refer to the official judgment attached below."
- What Was the Case About: The plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell (ATS) executed on March 15, 2010, for a total property consideration of ₹13,78,000. The buyers paid the complete sale consideration, but the seller refused to execute the final registered sale deed, forcing the buyers to take legal action.
- Key Arguments: The buyers presented oral and documentary evidence, including testimony from four witnesses, confirming full payment and execution of the agreement [4.2, 5, 11]. Although the seller filed a written defense, his lawyer did not cross-examine the buyers' witnesses, and the seller himself failed to step into the witness box to give testimony [4.1, 4.2, 5, 6]. On second appeal, the seller argued that the lower courts erred and requested one more opportunity to submit evidence to prove he had not received full payment.
- What Did the Court Decide: The Gujarat High Court dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the lower courts' decrees ordering the seller to execute the sale deed [6.3, 7, 21]. Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao), the Court held that when a party avoids entering the witness box to testify or undergo cross-examination, the court must draw an adverse presumption that their written defense is untrue. Furthermore, citing Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth, the Court affirmed that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, High Courts cannot re-evaluate factual evidence or disturb matching lower court findings unless proven to be grossly perverse.
Why This Judgment Matters to Everyday Citizens
This judgment emphasizes a critical legal lesson for property buyers and sellers: written claims in court are meaningless unless backed by personal testimony and evidence in the witness box. For everyday citizens, it confirms that if you fulfill your obligations under a property agreement, sellers cannot back out or block the legal transfer simply by ignoring trial court proceedings [3, 4.2, 6]. It provides security to honest real estate buyers by ensuring that courts will enforce property sales when full payment is proven and unrefuted.
Applicable Laws and Sections
- Acts Applicable: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC); Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Specific Relief Act, 1963.
- Key Sections:
- Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Restricts High Court second appeals strictly to substantial questions of law, barring the re-opening of lower court factual findings.
- Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Allows courts to draw an adverse presumption against any party who refuses to enter the witness box to give sworn testimony.