1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.172/2010 DADAJI MAHADEO GIRI [DEAD] LRS. SMT. VIMAL WD/O DADAJI GIRI & ORS VERSUS RAGHUNATH TUKARAM DASARWAR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Smt. U. A. Patil, advocate for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 16, 2010 . Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They had filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale of field property. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 had executed an agreement to sale the suit property to the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and hence the suit was filed. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiffs and also denied that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It was the case of the defendant no.1 that in fact the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by paying balance consideration for the purchase of the property. According to the defendant the suit property was being sold by the defendant in the 2 year 1992 for the marriage of his daughter Nilima. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit as according to the defendant the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Both the courts on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and specially by considering th cross-examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs held that the plaintiffs had not succeeded in proving that they were willing and ready to perform their part of contract and the defendant had avoided to perform his part. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts. The courts, in fact granted the alternate prayer of the plaintiffs for refund of the earnest amount. The findings recorded by both the courts on the issue of readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs’ to perform their part of contract are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of material evidence on record. Since they do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP