THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 564 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 6.04.2010 made in A.S.No. 144 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam confirming the decree and judgment made in O.S.No. 194 of 2000 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam dated 03.03.2006. Appellant is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for specific performance of the Contract dated 19.7.1997. As seen from the record, the first defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property in July, 1997 on behalf of herself and also on behalf of 2nd defendant who is her minor daughter at Rs. 200/- per cent and executed an agreement of sale dated 19.7.1997 and an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- was paid by the plaintiff and the defendants received the said consideration. The defendants promised to execute the sale deed within a period of one year as agreed but they have been postponing the same. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance and for refund of sale consideration and also for damages. The court below decreed the suit partly with proportionate costs for Rs. 1,10,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed appeal and the defendants preferred cross objections before the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the learned Judge dismissed the appeal partly allowing the cross-objections to the extent of findings of the Trial Court that the suit agreement binds the 2nd defendant also and the remaining findings of the Trial Court stand good. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and partly decreed the suit with proportionate costs for Rs. 1,10,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization of Rs. 1,10,000/-. On appeal being filed along with cross-objections, the appellate court also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court but partly allowed the cross-objections to the extent of findings of the Trial Court that the suit agreement binds the 2nd defendant also and the remaining findings of the Trial Court stand good. Therefore, in my opinion the trial court has considered the matter objectively and decreed the suit and the same was confirmed by the appellate court partly allowing the cross-objections. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this court. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 18.06.2010 KA