1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.63 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.426 OF 2009 Anil Ramesh Agrawal ..Appellant versus Rajendra Parshuram Patwardhan ..Respondent Mr.Mankapure for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 30th JUNE, 2009. P.C: 1. The appellant-plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.277 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Divison, Tasgaon, for specific performance of agreement dated 1.6.1985 Exhibit 45 on the basis of which the respondent herein had agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, by his 2 judgment and decree dated 20.4.2002 declined to grant specific performance and dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment, the appellant herein filed the appeal in the District Court being Civil Appeal No.141 of 2002. The learned District Judge -I, Sangli (hereafter referred to as the learned District Judge) by his Judgment and Decree dated 20.9.2008 partly decreed the suit in as much as the relief for specific performance was declined. However, he directed the present respondent to repay to the appellant in all a sum of Rs.45,000/- along with interest with certain dates as set out in the impugned judgment and decree. 2. This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2008. I have heard learned Advocate for the appellant. 3. The learned trial Judge rejected the entire claim of the appellant, as against that the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the transaction between the parties was a money 3 lending transaction and that is how he directed return of monies to the present appellant. 4. It is required to be noted that the agreement came to be executed on 1.6.1985 and at that time it is found that sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the appellant to respondent. Subsequently on 9.3.1987 further sum of Rs.25,000/- came to be paid. The total consideration was Rs.60,000/- only. The appellant, thereafter on 2.12.1987 issued notice demanding specific performance of the agreement. The suit came to be filed in July 1988 i.e. practically after six months. 5. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled for specific performance and he rejected the claim. Whereas the learned District Judge arrived at the conclusion that this is not a case for specific performance and ordered return of monies on the ground that the appellant had advanced monies to the defendant and the transaction was couched in 4 the form of money lending transaction. 6. After having considered the entire record, I am inclined to observe that no substantial question of law is placed before the court for admission of the second appeal. The conduct on the part of the appellant which is manifested with reference to payment of consideration, issuance of notice and lodgment of suit clearly goes to show that he was not interested in purchasing the property but the real nature of the transaction as observed by the Courts below was money lending transaction. In my view, no interference is required in the order. Hence the second appeal is required to be dismissed. Hence the Order. ORDER Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, Civil Application No.426 of 2009 is also dismissed with no order as to costs. 5 (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)