1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No. 139 of 2006 With Civil Application No.1639 of 2006 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri Avinash Borulkar, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Vinesh Solshe, Advocatge, holding for Shri Vivek Solshe Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri D.R. Dhumal Advocate holding for Shri B.R.Sontakke Patil, Advocate, for Respondent No.2. 1. Learned counsel for appellant took me through the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court. The trial court has held that the agreement of sale produced on record was a document which was 2 tampered with and possession was not delivered. It is also held that there was no agreement of sale, but the plaintiff has paid Rs.30,000/= to defendant No.1 towards loan and in the circumstances, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to refund of money paid but not to specific performance of agreement of sale. 2. The judgment of the trial court is further upheld by learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Osmanabad in Regular Civil Appeal No.308 of 2000 decided on 16.9.2005. The District Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove that he was and is still ready to perform his part of contract. It is also held that it was a money transaction and not agreement of sale. It is held that Respondent No.1, to whom Respondent No. 2 had sold the property, is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. 3 3. After going through the reasons given by first appellate court, it appears that the alleged agreement of sale (Exh.104) is not a complete agreement. It is not mentioned how much amount was paid at the time of sale deed and when the sale was effected. It is alleged that stipulation regarding delivery of possession was incorporated later on. On going through the judgments of both the courts, it is evident that there are concurrent findings of fact based on evidence on record and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the view taken by the courts is unreasonable. 4. Hence, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, this second appeal cannot be admitted, so far as prayer for specific performance of contract is concerned, as it is proved that the transaction was not agreement of sale, but it was 4 a loan transaction. View taken by the courts is reasonable and cannot be said to be perverse. 5. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed at admission stage. 6. Civil Application No.1639 of 2006 does not survive in view of dismissal of second appeal. Date:06/07/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/sa139.06