1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2008 Smt. Meghmala Chandrakant Rakibi ..Appellant Vs. Shri Rajaram Nanaji Patil Since deceased, through his heirs and legal representatives: 1A. Smt. Tulsabai Rajaram Shewale &Ors. Respondents. Mr. S.K.Shinde, Advocate, i/b. Mr. Sagar Kasar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.R.R.Sonawane, Advocate for respondents 1A to 1G. Mr. M.B.Shirsat, Advocate for respondent NO.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 2nd September, 2008. DATE: 2nd September, 2008. DATE: 2nd September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 2 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Both these Appeals are filed by the original plaintiff, who had filed two suits, being Regular Civil Suit no.79 of 1983 and Regular Civil Suit No.80 of 1983. According to her, she had agreed to purchase the suit property Gat no.375 admeasuring about 60 Ares from deceased defendant no.1 Rajaram for consideration of Rs.10,000/-. Whole of the amount was paid to him on the date of agreement dated 8.12.1986. According to her, on the said date, she was also put in possession of the property. The sale deed was to be executed after obtaining necessary permission for the same. The defendant Rajaram was avoiding to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and on 29.2.1992, he sold away the suit property in favour of the defendant no.2 - Nilkanth by registered sale deed. By the first suit, she sought perpetual injunction restraining the defendants causing interference in her possession over the suit property and by second suit, she claimed specific performance of the agreement for sale of the property. 3. The defendant No.1 contested the suit and according to him, the agreement was to sell the property for Rs.20,000/-, but to avoid the registration expenses of the agreement the amount was shown to be Rs.10,000/-. 3 That amount was also repaid later on. He also denied that the plaintiff was put in possession of the property. It is admitted that the suit property was sold to defendant No.2 on 29.2.1992 for consideration of Rs.20,000/-. Defendant No.1 contended that out of that amount, the amount of Rs.10,000/- was repaid to the plaintiff on 1.3.1993. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. 4. After hearing the evidence, the trial Court held that the consideration amount of Rs.10,000/- was received by the defendant No.1 but the defendant No.1 had failed to prove that amount was repaid. The trial Court did not accept the contention of the plaintiff that she was put in possession of the property on the basis of the agreement for sale. The trial court also came to conclusion that the defendant was avoiding to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The contention of the defendant No.2 that he is a bonafide purchaser for value with notice of the claim of the plaintiff was also negatived. Inspite of all these findings, the trial Court refused specific performance of the contract as well as perpetual injunction but directed the defendant No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff with interest. 5. Being aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial 4 Court, the plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.392 of 2002 and No.393 of 2002 against the judgment in both the suits. Cross objections were also taken by the defendants. The trial Court came to conclusion that Murlidhar, who is father of the plaintiff as well as defendant no.2 and who is the general power of attorney for the plaintiff, had admitted in the cross-examination that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was returned to him. In view of this, the appellate Court dismissed both the appeals and allowed cross-objections filed by the defendant no.1 and set aside that part of the decree passed by the trial Court by which the defendant No.1 was directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest. In view of this, the plaintiff has preferred these Second Appeals. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the judgments of both the Courts below. The learned appellate Court has reproduced the admission of PW-1 Murlidhar, who appeared as power of attorney holder for the plaintiff. In the cross-examination, he admitted that on 29.2.1992, the defendant had sold the suit land to his son for consideration of Rs.20,000/- and on 1.3.1993, the defendant Rajaram repaid the amount of Rs.10,000/- to him. It is material to note that the plaintiff herself did not enter into witness box in view of the admission of her father, as power of attorney 5 holder, about refund of the consideration amount, I find no fault with the findings of the first appellate Court. No substantial question of law is involved in the present Appeals. 7. Therefore, both the Appeals stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)