1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APEPAL NO.307 OF 2010 SMT. MALAN SHRAWAN NAGAPURE & ORS ..VS.. SURESH VISHWESHWAR HAWALE & ORS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 2 /9 / 2010 Heard Shri Ingle, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Markandeywar, the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents are the original plaintiffs. They had filed the present suit for possession of the suit property admeasuring 0.58 R. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants/ appellants, the sons of late Chandrabhan had filed Civil suit No.65/1989 for specific performance of contract of the suit field or for the refund of the earnest amount against the respondents herein . It was the case of the respondents/ plaintiffs in this case that previously the appellants/ defendants in this case had pleaded in R.C.S.65/1989 that the respondents had agreed to sell the suit property to the appellants. The suit was decreed by the trial court, but the first appellate court reversed the judgment passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit of the appellant for specific 2 performance of contract. The second appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment passed by the first appellate court was also dismissed. After the judgment, dismissing the R.C.S.No.65/1989 filed by the appellants for specific performance of contract attained finality, the respondents filed the present suit for possession of 58 R of land. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they were the joint owners of the suit property. The appellants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and denied that the plaintiffs were the joint owners of the 58 R of land i.e. suit property. It was however, admitted by the appellant that the suit filed by the appellants for specific performance of contract was ultimately dismissed by the courts. The appellants however, sought the dismissal of the present suit. Both the courts on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record held that the plaintiffs/ respondents succeeded in proving that they were the joint owners of the suit property admeasuring 0.58 R of land. The courts held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the suit filed by the appellants for specific performance of contract was dismissed. The plaintiffs in this suit were entitled to possession of the suit property. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts, based on a proper appreciation 3 of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.