1 S.A.No.348-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.348 OF 2010 Balasaheb Namdeo Balwadkar and ors .. Appellants Vs Rohidas Pandurang Nimbalkar and ors .. Respondents Mr P.B.Shah, for the appellants. Mr P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr Ajay A Patil for respondent nos 1 and 2. Ms Smita Mane for respondent no.3-A to 3-D and 4. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 30/09/2010 PC: 1. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below decreeing the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs. The suit was instituted for redemption of mortgage and for specific performance of either reconveyance deeds (i..e Exh-75 dated 3.4.75, Exh.75 dated 13.6.78 and Exh.78 dated 13.6.78) or agreements to sale (i.e. Exhibits 86,87 and 88 - all dated 21.4.1983). The courts below have granted specific performance of the agreements to sale T 2 S.A.No.348-10 (Exhibits 86,87 and 88) by the impugned judgment. 2. Mr Shah, learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submitted that the courts below have committed grave error of law in granting specific performance of the agreements to sale (Exhs 86,87 and 88) though there was no such prayer made in the plaint and that there were no pleadings in the plaint seeking such performance. He further submitted that there was no pleadings on the point of readiness or willingness in the suit in respect of these agreements. He further submitted that even in the evidence, plaintiff no.1 has not sought specific performance of these agreements and has not stated that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. He then invited our attention to the pleadings (plaint) and more particularly paragraph 15 thereof and submitted that after the agreements to sale (Exhs.86,87 and88) were executed, on the very same day three other documents were executed in the nature of agreements to sale by the appellants in favour of the plaintiff and since the plaintiff did not seek specific performance of those three documents it is not open for them to seek performance of the agreements to sale dated 21.4.1983 (Exhibits 86,87 and 88). In support of his contentions, he read the entire plaint and the part of the evidence of plaintiff no.1. I 3 S.A.No.348-10 have carefully perused the plaint and in my opinion, as has been held by the courts below, the prayers in the plaint clearly show that the specific performance was sought by the plaintiffs of the agreements to sale dated 21.4.1983 (Exhs.86,87 and 88) and the pleadings in support thereof also exist in paragraphs, 15,19 and 20. Even the evidence of the P.W.1 ,i.e. plaintiff no.1, clearly show that he sought specific performance of the agreements dated 21.4.1983 (Exhs.86,87 and 88) and also stated about his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of his examination in chief clearly support the case of the plaintiffs. There is no dispute that all the three agreements to sale dated 21.4.1983 (Exhs 86,87 and 88) were registered documents. Insofar as the second contention of Mr Shah that in view of the subsequent documents executed and referred to in paragraph 15 of the plaint is concerned, I find no merit in the same since those documents were not registered, and secondly the plaintiffs have clearly stated in the plaint and in the evidence that those documents were executed by exercising pressure on them. In the circumstances, I find absolutely no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law is either raised or involved in this appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The Interim protection granted by this court shall remain operative for a period of six weeks, at the 4 S.A.No.348-10 request of Mr Shah, learned counsel for the appellants. The civil application is also disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)