M.K. MADHAVAN (DELETED) NANLINI W/O MADHAVAN AND OTHRS(Legal Heir) SHRI. ATUL G. DAMLE AND SHUKLA AND SHUKLA 1. vs R. SUBRAMANIAM (DELETED) RAJESH R. SUBRAMANIAM AND OTHRS 1. — FA/235/2008

Case under C.p.c.- (Non-interlocutory Order). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 21-Feb-2008

CNR: HCBM010043792008

Filing Number

FA/3232/2008

Filing Date

28-Jan-2008

Registration No

FA/235/2008

Registration Date

07-Feb-2008

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

Bench Type

Single

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 03-May-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Non-interlocutory Order)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M.K. MADHAVAN (DELETED) NANLINI W/O MADHAVAN AND OTHRS(Legal Heir) SHRI. ATUL G. DAMLE AND SHUKLA AND SHUKLA 1.

  2. 2.SMT NANLINI WD/O M.K. MADHAVAN,1.

  3. 3.SHRI SUNIL MADHAVAN,

    Adv. Rupesh R Lanjekar1.

  4. 4.SHRI PRAMOD MADHAVAN,

    Adv. Rupesh R Lanjekar1.

  5. 5.SMT PUSHPA W/O. PREMNATH,

    Adv. Rupesh R Lanjekar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.R. SUBRAMANIAM (DELETED) RAJESH R. SUBRAMANIAM AND OTHRS 1.

  2. 2.SHRI RAJESH R. SUBRAMANIAM,1.

  3. 3.SMT SAROJA SUBRAMANIAM,1.

  4. 4.SMT KAMALA D/O. R. SUBRAMANIAM,1.

  5. 5.SMT JAYSHREE D/O. R. SUBRAMANIAM,1.

  6. 6.SMT LATA D/O. R SUBRAMANIAM,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Bombay allowed the appellants' (plaintiffs') First Appeal and granted them specific performance of a 1978 oral property sale agreement, with the key finding that the plaintiffs proved continuous readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount. The court set aside the trial court's judgment that had rejected specific performance, holding that contemporaneous documentary evidence (letters from 1981) demonstrated the plaintiffs' commitment to complete the transaction, and that non-deposit of the balance amount alone cannot bar specific performance under the Specific Relief Act. However, to balance equities given the property's appreciation since 1978, the court directed the plaintiffs to pay an additional Rs.25 lacs beyond the original agreed price of Rs.50,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

  4. 28-Nov-2025

    For Orders (Regular)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

  5. 13-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

  6. 13-Nov-2025

    For Orders (Regular)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

  7. 06-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

  8. 06-Nov-2025

    For Final Hearing

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

  9. 15-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

  10. 08-Oct-2025

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

  11. 08-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

  12. 21-Feb-2008

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.S. OkaView PDF

  13. 21-Feb-2008

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  14. 28-Jan-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. FA/235/2008

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Bombay allowed the appellants' (plaintiffs') First Appeal and granted them specific performance of a 1978 oral property sale agreement, with the key finding that the plaintiffs proved continuous readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount. The court set aside the trial court's judgment that had rejected specific performance, holding that contemporaneous documentary evidence (letters from 1981) demonstrated the plaintiffs' commitment to complete the transaction, and that non-deposit of the balance amount alone cannot bar specific performance under the Specific Relief Act. However, to balance equities given the property's appreciation since 1978, the court directed the plaintiffs to pay an additional Rs.25 lacs beyond the original agreed price of Rs.50,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case