1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.531 OF 2010 Shri.Bajirao Govind Gole .. Appellant V/s Shri.Chandrakant Dinkar Shinde & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sawant i/by Mr.R.B.Parab, Advocate for the Appellant. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 18th February, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Sawant, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 3.4.2007 passed by the learned IInd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Phaltan,, as also the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Satara. By these judgments, the Courts below dismissed the suit instituted by the appellant- original plaintiff. 2. In support of this appeal, Mr.Sawant submitted that the Courts below wrongly came to the conclusion that the suit instituted by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. In fact, the defendants committed default in paying the amount as per the consent decree dated 10.9.1957 passed in Civil Suit No.105 of 1956. He 2 therefore submitted that in view of that compromise decree, the plaintiff is entitled to ownership on account of default on the part of the defendants. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. The learned District Judge in Paragraph No.12 of the judgment has given details about the amounts, deposited by the defendants pursuant to the compromise decree dated 10.9.1957. It was further observed in Paragraph No.13 that as per the terms of the compromise, after default which took place in the year 1960 the appellant plaintiff was under obligation to repay the amount with interest and then to claim possession on the basis of title. The title was to be conferred on that contingency. Admittedly the plaintiff’s father or the plaintiff did not repay the amount. On the other hand, the plaintiff moved an application on 30.3.2007 in the trial Court praying for permission to deposit the amount to the tune of Rs.1824/-. Thus, the plaintiff showed willingness to pay the amount deposited by the Defendants father that too after 51 years. The learned District Judge therefore held that the plaintiff himself admitted that there was also a default on his part. They have not complied with the terms and conditions of the 3 compromise. Accordingly, he held that the plaintiff was not entitled to institute suit in the year 2002 on the basis that the title was conferred on them. 4. After considering the material on record, the Courts below concurrently dismissed the suit. It can’t be said that the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below were either perverse or that the Courts below failed to consider the relevant material. 5. Considering this position, I do not find that the present second appeal involves any substantial question of law. Hence the second appeal is dismissed summarily. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)