IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.13 OF 2010. (MANILAL RAWALDAS BHOJWANI....VS.. SHARADCHANDRA @ SHARADRAO RAMKRISHNA TIDKE & OTH.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.N. Bhiwapurkar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. J.J.Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 (c to e) CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : OCTOBER 04, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 agreed to sell Plot Nos. 39, 40 and 41 admeasuring 8840 square feet from Survey No.7 in the proposed layout for a consideration of Rs.1,32,000/-. The plaintiff pleaded that the sale deed was to be executed within 11 months from the date when the suit field got released from the acquisition proceedings filed by the Government. According to the plaintiff, the layout was released by the State Government from the acquisition proceedings and instead of the proposed layout another layout was sanctioned by the authorities. It was pleaded that the defendant No.1 asked the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed before 31.11.1987 on a fresh offer to purchase Plot Nos. 50, 51 and 52 admeasuring 8638 square feet, the boundaries of which were different from the original Plot Nos. 39, 40 and 41. Since the plaintiff insisted on getting the sale deeds executed for the land admeasuring 8840 square feet, according to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 illegally sold the Plot Nos. 59 and 60 admeasuring 11105 square feet to the defendants No.2, 3 and 4. The plaintiff, therefore, sought the specific performance of contract dated 26.12.1984 or in the alternative for the refund of earnest amount of Rs.33,000/-. 2. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the original layout was not sanctioned by the authorities and a new layout was sanctioned as per the revised sanctioned plan. According to the defendants, Plot Nos. 59 and 60 were situated at a different place than Plot Nos. 39, 40 and 41 and the area was also increased from 8840 square feet to 11105 square feet. It was pleaded that the defendants No.2 to 5 were bonafide purchasers of the suit plot for a value without notice and hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 3. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the material evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that instead of Plot Nos. 39, 40 and 41 from the proposed layout admeasuring 8840 square feet the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of contract for purchase of Plot Nos. 59 and 60 admeauring 11105 square feet. The Courts held that the contract, as it existed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, got frustrated as soon as the proposed layout plan was not sanctioned and instead a new layout plan was sanctioned. The Courts found that the defendants No. 2 to 5 were bonafide purchasers of the suit plot for a value without notice and hence, the decree for specific performance of the contract could not have been granted in favour of the plaintiff. 4. The reasons recorded by both the Courts for declining the relief sought by the plaintiff are just and reasonable and the Courts have judiciously exercised the discretion in rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff for grant of a decree for specific performance of the contract. The findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR.