FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.143/2010 Smt. Manjulabai w/o Ganpatrao Wanjari & others ..vs.. Smt. Tanabai Nathuji Bhoyar & another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Mohan B. Turankar, advocate for the appellant CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 7, 2010 . Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the plaintiffs had a preferential right to purchase the suit property and the defendants be restrained from selling the same to any person other than the plaintiffs. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they were the tenants of the defendants in the house property situated at Nagpur. According to the plaintiffs they had expressed their desire to purchase the suit property from the defendants at the market value and their offer was accepted by the defendant no.2 by the reply dated 7.11.2002. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the year 2004 with a plea that the defendants were negotiating with third parties for the sale of the property and since the plaintiffs had a preferential right to purchase the same, the defendants be restrained from selling the same to the third party. The suit proceeded exparte against the defendants. The trial and the appellate court, however, held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had a right of preemption i.e. preferential right to purchase the suit property. The courts held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the right of preemption and also failed to prove the letter by which they had offered to purchase the suit property from the defendants. The courts held that there was nothing on record to show that the defendants had entered into a contract with any third party for the sale of property. The courts concurrently held that the right to purchase the suit property did not accrue in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. The findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP