FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.414/2009 Shri Uttam Mahadeo Landge & others ..vs.. Ramesh Kisan Moon - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri D.M.Gabhane, advocate for appellant Shri D.S.Dharaskar advocate for respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 7, 2010 . Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is the original defendant. The suit was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for specific performance of contract of sale of field property for a consideration of Rs.22,750/-. The plaintiff paid the earnest amount to the defendant and according to the plaintiff though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendant failed to perform his part and illegally cancelled the agreement of sale executed between the parties on 6.2.1995. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and further denied that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It was pleaded by the defendant that on 30.3.1998 the defendant remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, but the plaintiff did not remain present before the Sub Registrar to get the sale deed executed. Hence the defendants pleaded that by notice dated 3.4.1998 the plaintiff was informed about the cancellation of the agreement of sale date d6.2.1995 and the forfeiture of the earnest amount. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the courts on appreciation of the material evidence on record held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The courts held that the plaintiff was present in the office of the Sub Registrar on a couple of occasions and was ready to get the sale deed executed. The courts held on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that the plaintiffs appeared before the Sub Registrar on 15.2.1997 and 13.3.1998, but the defendants failed to execute the sale deed. The courts held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance of the contract. The findings recorded by both he courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP