1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.358 OF 2008. Anantram Daulatraoji Kuhite and othrs. .vs.. Wamanrao Paikuji Choudhari and one anr. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 21st November, 2008. 1. Heard Mr.M.L.Somalwr, Advocate for the appellants. 2. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff, who was unsuccessful in both the courts below. He had instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale of suit field of which the defendant is said to be the owner. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he had paid Rs.500/- to the defendant towards earnest and the price was settled at Rs.7000/-. The defendant did 2 not perform his part of contract and hence the suit. 3. The defendant contended that there was no agreement in fact of the sale of the property and the possession was not delivered to the plaintiff. The defendant contends that the State Government has no power to lease out the property to the plaintiff and the power rests with the Central Government. It is further contention of defendant that the plaintiff had misled the defendant and had obtained the agreement of sale and he is taking disadvantages of the illiteracy of the defendant. 4. The trial court found that there was no agreement of sale. The plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the contract and that the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance of the contract. The appellate court also concurred with the finding recorded by the trial court. It appears from the discussion made by the courts below that the property that is sought to be purchased by the plaintiff is worth much more than the price at which it sought to be purchased by the plaintiff. 3 The price that is settled between the parties is only Rs.7000/-. It appears that the State of Maharashtra had acquired this property for a consideration of more than Rs.2,40,000/-. Shri Somalwar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that it was in fact not acquired for the said amount but maximum price may be Rs.60,000/-. Assuming the price to be Rs.60,000/-, yet the price as settled between the parties shows that it is too inadequate. In view of this, this court find that the courts below have property exercised the discretion vested in them. There is no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute