IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.115 OF 2008 Shri Gurunath Shivappa Patil )..Appellant Versus Shri Rahul Anant Adlinge & Anr. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the appellant. Mr.Ajay Joshi for respondent nos.1 & 2. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 24.6.2008 PC 1. This is a Second Appeal filed by the original plaintiff. The suit was for specific performance of an agreement dated 20.11.1991. The defence of the defendant was that the agreement had been obtained by fraud. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit by holding that the agreement had been improperly procured. The appeal Court reversed this finding but held that the plaintiff’s suit cannot be decreed because plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is sought to be contended that the agreement itself indicated that there was an encroachment upon the property and parties agreed that encroachment should first be removed by the original defendant and thereafter sale deed can be executed within a period of one month. In case defendant did not remove the : 2 : encroachment then it would be open for the plaintiff to obtain sale deed through the Court and also remove the encroachers by due process of law. The record indicates however, that the plaintiff did not pursue his right and filed the suit only in November-1996. The notice also has been issued in the year 1996. In the circumstances, finding of the appellate Court that the record did not indicate that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, cannot be faulted. There is no substantial question of law involved in this Appeal. Hence, Second Appeal stands dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)