1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 OF 1994 Pandurang Kashinath Kharde, Age : 51 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Mahegaon-Deshmukh, Tal. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through G.P.A. Baburao Kashinath Kharde, Age : Major, R/o Mahegaon-Deshmukh, Tal. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Appellant Versus 1. Sundarlal Lalchand Dagade, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Kopergaon, Tal. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Bhaskar Baburao Pangavane, Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Agril., 3. Nanasaheb Baburao Pangavane, Age : 38 Yeas, Occu. : Agril., 4. Harshala Nanasaheb Pangavane, Age : 28 Years, Occu. : Household, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 resident of Mahegaon-Deshmukh, Tal. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents 2 Shri D. R. Markad, Advocate h/f Shri N. K. Kakade, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Shri S. D. Kulkarni, Advocate Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 07TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : . This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1994 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Kopargaon, against the dismissal of the plaintiffs/appellants suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 06/1992 for specific performance of contract and injunction. 2. Heard Shri Markad, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S. S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents. 3. The material facts for the decision of this appeal can be briefly stated as under : The appellant is the original plaintiff and respondents are the original defendants. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the 3 subsequent purchasers of the suit property bearing land Gat No. 45 admeasuring 3 Acres 53 R situated at village Mahegaon Deshmukh, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar from the respondent No. 1. 4. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs case is based on oral agreement of sale of suit property for the consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The negotiations took place on 27.10.1991. At that time plaintiff and his brother agreed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs only) to defendant No. 1 on or about 07th November, 1991. Due to demise of plaintiff's father who died on 05th November, 1991, no payment or agreement in writing took place as per the negotiations, held on 27.10.1991. Therefore, the plaintiff again approached to defendant No. 1 with a request to accommodate him and asked for extension of time and made payment of Rs. 25,000/- to the defendant No. 1. 5. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the suit land on payment of Rs. 25,000/- on 25th November, 1991 and was allowed two months time for execution of regular sale deed as per their oral agreement. According to plaintiff, defendant No. 1 sold out the suit land to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are the subsequent 4 purchasers and thus made breach of the agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of oral agreement of sale against all the defendants including the subsequent purchasers. The defendant No. 1 denied the said oral agreement of sale and also payment of Rs. 25,000/- or any amount as earnest money. 6. In the light of the above controversy, I have perused and examined the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. As many as nine issues were framed by the Trial Court and it came to the conclusion that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the bonafide purchasers of the suit land, holding that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove the agreement of sale as alleged. 7. Upon consideration of record and evidence of the parties, it is found that except oral testimony of plaintiff, there is nothing on record to prove the alleged agreement of sale. There is nothing to corroborate the plaintiffs claim. The impugned transaction is of a sale of immovable property for valuable consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Admittedly, on the alleged date of oral agreement, there was no payment or passing of any consideration i. e. on 27.10.1991. There is no evidence to show 5 that the plaintiff made payment of Rs. 25,000/- and received possession in part performance of the contract. In the absence of any writing or documentary evidence, the plaintiff's story about oral agreement of sale and purchase of landed property cannot be accepted and believed for specific performance. The learned Trial Court has discussed all evidence recorded in this case and rightly came to the conclusion that there is no foundation to the claim of the plaintiff. Thus, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. As such, impugned judgment and decree deserves to be maintained and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence this order. O R D E R I. The appeal stand dismissed. II. Since the dispute is pending since long and parties being adjoining land owners there shall be no order as to costs. III. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/July 10