1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 208/2010 (Chandrabhan @ Ramchandra Sakharam Kinekar VERSUS Smt. Sitabai wd/o Ramrao Kale & others) AND Second Appeal No. 278/2010 (Chandrabhan @ Ramchandra Sakharam Kinekar VERSUS Smt. Sitabai wd/o Ramrao Kale ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.K. Choube, counsel for the appellant . Shri V.G. Bhamburkar, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 16, 2010 . Since common questions of facts arise in these two appeals and these appeals arise out of the common judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Court in two separate suits filed by the appellant and the respondents, they are being heard together for admission and are decided by this common order. The appellant is the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.28/1997 filed by the appellant for specific performance of contract. According to the plaintiff, the defendant nos.1 and 2 had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 08.04.1994 agreeing to sell the suit land to the appellant for a consideration of Rs.65,000/-. It is the case of the appellant 2 that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid to the defendant nos.1 and 2 at the time of execution of the sale-deed and an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid subsequently. The balance consideration of Rs.20,000/- was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale-deed. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant nos.4 to 6, who are the brother and sisters of defendant no.2 had authorized the defendant no.2 to dispose of the suit field. Prior to the filing of the suit by the appellant , another suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.221/1996 was filed by the defendant no.1/respondent no.1 for possession of the suit property as according to the respondent no1, the appellant started disturbing the possession of the respondent no.1 over the suit field in the month of February-1996 on the ground that he had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit field. It was the case of the respondent no.1 in Regular Civil Suit No.221/1996 that by taking advantage of the fact that the respondent no.1 was residing at Nagpur along with her other son and was away from village Waigaon, the appellant had taken forcible possession of the suit property and started cultivating the same. The respondent no.1, therefore, claimed possession of the suit property. 3 Common evidence was tendered in both these cases and the trial Court decided both the civil suits by a common judgment dated 08.04.2002. The trial Court held that the appellant did not succeed in proving that the defendant nos.4 to 6, who were also the owners of the property had authorized the defendant no.2 to dispose of the suit field and that the defendant nos.1 and 2 had agreed to sell the suit field to the appellant for a consideration of Rs.65,000/-. The Court held that since the agreement was not proved, there was no necessity to decide the issue of readiness and willingness of the appellant to perform his part of the contract. The Court also held that the respondent no.1 succeeded in proving that her thumb impression was obtained by the defendant no.2 on blank stamp papers. The Court held that the appellant did not secure the possession of the suit field by part performance of the contract. The trial Court recorded a finding that the appellant had taken forcible possession of the suit property when respondent no.1 was at Nagpur and, hence, the respondent no.1 was entitled to grant of decree of possession in the suit instituted by her. The findings recorded by the trial Court were confirmed by the first appellate Court except the finding that the appellant took forcible possession of the suit land in the month of 4 June-1996. The appellant Court consequently dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellant against the judgment passed in his suit and the suit filed by the respondent no.1. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Both the Courts have extensively considered the evidence in this case to record the aforesaid findings. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these second appeals, the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE