ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.735 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.735 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.735 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.H.R.Pawar for the Appellant. Mr.S.G.Bhandary for Respondent Nos.1C, 1D and 1E. Ms.Teja Katdare for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 5th May, 2008 : 5th May, 2008 : 5th May, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . This is a Second Appeal filed by the original Plaintiff whose suit was dismissed and also Appeal, as after considering the basic documents dated 3rd October, 1970, apart from the adducing evidence on record, it is clearly observed and recorded by the lower Appellate Court by giving reasoning that the Plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of contract and therefore, the suit was ( 2 ) dismissed. The Appellate court confirmed that the Defendant No.1 proved that vide agreement dated 03/10/1970, the Plaintiff has given up his right to re-purchase the suit property which is created vide agreement dated 17/07/1967 and thereby rejected the complaint of the Plaintiff by further observing that the Plaintiff failed to prove the sale deed dated 16/12/1992 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 is null and void. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has strongly relied on the terms and conditions of agreement dated 17/07/1967 read with agreement dated 03/10/1970 in question. 3. Having once again gone through the same, I am of the ( 3 ) view that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial court, which is within the framework of law and record. There is no perversity. 4. The agreement dated 03/10/1970 has rightly observed by the Court and this position is made clear by the parties themselves. The written agreement taken note of, as it is. The oral submission readwith, if any, in no way affect the same. 5. In totality, therefore, there is no substance in this Second Appeal and is dismissed accordingly. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]