1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.259/2010 Haribhau Fagosa Girpunje ..vs.. Bashir Ahmad Mohammad Ahmad & ors =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 15th June, 2010. Heard Shri Chandurkar, the learned advocate for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff further sought a declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 & 2 in favour of defendant no.3 & 4 should be cancelled. The plaintiff pleaded that on 26.4.1991, the defendant no.1 and 2 had agreed to sale the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.70,000/-. According to the plaintiff the entire consideration was paid to the defendant no.1 and 2 at the time of execution of the agreement and the sale deed was to be executed subject to the permission of the concerned authority i.e. S.D.O. The plaintiff pleaded that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiff and pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. It was also pleaded by the defendants that the transaction dated 26.4.1991 was a loan transaction and the possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiffs in pursuance to the loan transaction. It was pleaded by the defendants that there was no question of the plaintiff being 2 ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as transaction dated 26.4.1994 was a loan transaction. Defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the courts on an appreciation of evidence on record held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation as the alleged agreement to sale was executed on 26.4.1991 and the suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 23.3.2001 and it was not proved by the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract throughout this period of 10 years. The courts further held that the defendants no.1 and 2 have succeeded in proving that the transaction dated 26.4.1991 was a loan transaction and the document dated 26.4.1991 was not be acted upon. While recording the aforesaid findings both the courts considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, specially the contents of the document dated 26.4.1991 to record a finding that the transaction dated 26.4.1991 was a loan transaction. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. 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