1 sa293.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2011 Shri Babgonda Anna Patil. ....Appellant. Vs. Shri Adgonda Ramgonda Patil & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Deshinge h/f. Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocate for Appellant. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- AUGUST 20, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Deshinge, Advocate holding for Mr. Killedar, Advocate for the Appellant. This Second Appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful Plaintiff in RCS No. 17 of 1998 filed in the Court of Learned CJJD, Peth- Vadgaon District Kolhapur for specific performance of agreement of Sale dated 13/6/1973 which was dismissed by the Learned CJJD, Peth- Vadgaon by Judgment and Decree dated 20/10/2007 as confirmed by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 10/2/2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kolhapur by dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No. 281 of 2007 filed by the Appellant. 2 sa293.11 2. Perusal of the issues and the findings recorded by the Courts below shows that though execution of the registered Agreement for Sale dated 13/6/1973 and payment of a sum of Rs. 1500/- towards earnest has been held to be proved, and though the suit has been held to be within limitation, on account of the complete inaction on the part of the original Plaintiff in calling upon the Defendants vendors to perform their part of the contract or to obtain the permission which was stated to be required to be obtained by the vendors, the Courts below have concurrently held that the Plaintiff has failed to prove readiness and willingness. Even on the question of possession, the Courts below have held that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that he was put in possession as and by way of part performance and, obviously, both on account of these findings as also on account of the findings regarding readiness and willingness; prayer of the Plaintiff for grant of injunction to protect his alleged possession has been dismissed. 3. The learned Advocate for the Appellant contends that since by the time the evidence was recorded, the original Plaintiff has died, the admissions given by his son during oral evidence to the effect that land 3 sa293.11 was free hold land and it was not necessary to obtain any permission for sale could not have been used for holding that the Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Said argument overlooks the fact that the condition in the agreement which was unnecessarily imposed on the Vendors would not justify inaction of the Plaintiff for almost 15 years. Even ignoring the said admissions of the son of the original Plaintiff, total inaction on the part of the Plaintiff for a period of 15 years on the basis of which finding about readiness and willingness has been concurrently recorded against the Plaintiff cannot be said to be perverse finding. There is also no perversity in the finding regarding possession. 4 No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)