* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 552 OF 2008 W I TH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1349 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 552 OF 2008 Hemant Fakira Jadhav & Ors. ..........Appellants/Orig.Defds V/S. Sou. Shantabai Rambhau Jangale ...........Respondent/Orig.Plff --------- Mr. Manoj Kadam i/by. Mr. S.B. Thorat, adv.for appellants. Mr. S.D.Dharmadhikari, adv.for respondents. CORAM:- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 14TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25th April, 2006 by which the first appellate court confirmed the decree in the suit with some modification. The trial court had decreed the suit and granted refund of the * 2 * earnest money whereas the lower appellate court after maintaining the decree granted prayer in the form of specific performance of the respondent. 3. Appellant no.1 is the owner of agricultural land at Gat no. 247 admeasuring 4 hectares and 26 R. As he was in need of money, he agreed to sell a portion of the land admeasuring 67 R to the respondent for the consideration of Rs.45,000/-. Accordingly, agreement of sale was executed on 16th August, 1996. At that time, respondent had paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to appellant no.1. It was agreed between them that the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- would be given to appellant no.1 by the respondent within a period of 11 months from the date of the execution of the agreement of sale and accordingly possession of the land was handed over to the respondent. It appears that thereafter appellant no.1 sold the property to appellant no.2. Therefore, the respondent filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The defence of appellant no.2 to the suit for specific performance was that respondent had obtained signatures of appellant no.1 on blank stamp papers by playing fraud upon him. This contention is rejected by the trial court as * 3 * well as the first appellate court. Thereafter, the courts held that the transaction of sale between the original defendants was a valid transaction and original defendant no.2 is the bonafide purchaser of the property for value without notice. Once in view of the concurrent findings of the courts below as regards the rejection of defence of execution of the agreement of sale, it was entirely within the discretion of the courts below either to grant or not to grant the prayer for specific performance. The trial court had granted only refund of the money without giving reasons for not granting the specific performance. The appellate court considered that aspect of the matter and granted specific performance. The findings challenged in the appeal are essentially findings of facts. The same have attained finality and cannot be gone into, unless the same are shown to be perverse. In the instant case, the findings are seen to be supported by the material on record and thus do not require interference. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 4. With the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 1349 of 2008 taken out for stay does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. * 4 * [SMT. R..P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]