1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.02 OF 2005 (Amrisha s/o Sulemansha Vs. Ibrahimsha s/o Kachrusha) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. B.S.Kudale, Adv., for the appellant. Mrs. S.G.Chincholkar, Adv., h/f Mr.G.N.Chincholkar, Adv., for respondent no.2 caveator. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:19-3-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard. In a suit for specific performance of contract, concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts are questioned by the plaintiff in Second Appeal. 2. Plaintiff asserts, to be in possession of the suit property even prior to the agreement of sale dt.25th Jan.,1996, executed by defendant no.1 in his favour. The subsequent sale by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 in March, 1996, is also subject of 2 criticism. 3. Both the Courts, on analysis of the evidence found that the agreement of sale (Exh.42) could not have been relied as its acceleration is difficult to be acted upon on ground realities. The purchase of stamp at a place other than Hingoli was one of the reason. That apart, the sale consideration is referred as Rs. 25,000/-. Plaintiffs aver, having parted Rs.20,000/- in agreement of sale. No explanation is forthcoming as to how a paltry sum of Rs.5,000/- was left over, particularly when plaintiff asserts having got possession of the property. If the plaintiff was indeed in possession of the property, there was no injunction against him to get it mutated to establish either his possession or the execution of the agreement of sale. No such exercise is forthcoming. 4. The Courts, on analysis of the evidence, found that the 3 sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant No.2 ( Exh.56) was worthy and genuine document. The stand taken by the defendant no.1 that defendant No.2 Usmansha s/o Gulabsha took him to Hingoli by making misrepresentation that he would get allowance of Rs.100/- per month under Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana was, having tested on the evidence, found to be illusory defense, to avoid the transaction entered with defendant no.2. The Courts rightly found, the approach of defendant no.1 was certainly to cause sabotage to the sale deed executed in favour of defendant no.2, coupled with parting of possession. This has been recited in the sale deed established by the defendant no.2. On the contrary, there was no evidence, barring bare words of the defendant no.1 or the plaintiff having put plaintiff in possession. It was clearly observed, in answering issue No.5 that the action of the plaintiff was in collusion with defendant 4 no.1. I do not see that there is any perversity or illegality in the orders. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Second Appeal is rejected. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/2-05sa