1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.4/2010 SHALIGRAM UKARDA LADHE ..VS.. RAMRATAN DNYANDEO KARALE Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 18th June, 2010. Heard Shri N.R.Saboo, advocate for the appellant and Shri Kankale, advocate for the respondent. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for specific performance of contract of sale of suit field admeasuring 81 Rs. According to the plaintiff, the agreement was executed between the parties on 22.7.1991 and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed for decree of refund of the earnest amount with interest. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and also denied that the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.15000/- towards part consideration. The defendant pleaded that the said transaction was hit by the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act and the suit was liable to be dismissed as the said agreement dated 22.7.1991 was a void agreement. 2 On an appreciation of the evidence on record, both the courts held that the transaction dated 22.7.1991 was hit by the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation Act and hence the plaintiff was not entitled to decree for specific specific performance of contract. The courts however, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for refund of the earnest amount with interest. The defendant has challenged the decree for refund of amount by this second appeal. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of fact and are based on a proper appreciation of material evidence on record. Both the courts concurrently held that the suit was hit by the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, and as the plaintiff had paid the amount of Rs.15000/- to the defendant in pursuance of the agreement dated 22.7.1991 the plaintiff was entitled to the decree of refund of earnest amount. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant that since the transaction dated 22.7.1991 was a void transaction and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of refund of earnest amount is devoid of substance and is liable to be rejected. Sine no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP