1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.1149 OF 2004 Dada Maruti Mane : Appellant versus Ramchandra Laxman Mane : Respondent Mr.Milind Deshmukh for the Appellant. Mr.D.D.Rananaware for Respondent No.1 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J DATED : JULY 21, 2008 P.C. 1. The above Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 20.12.2002 passed by the learned Ivth Additional District Judge, Pandharpur. By the said Judgment and Decree, the appeal filed by the Appellant was partly allowed and it was directed that on Respondent depositing Rs.100/- [which had been deposited on 24-9-98], the appellants shal deliver the peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. The Old Block No.1143, new Block No.953 admeasuring 14 R of village Khudus, 2 Taluka Malshiras to the Respondent. 2. The Appellant herein was one of the plaintiffs who had filed a suit for for specific performance of the agreement dated 11- 9-1974 in respect of land bearing New Block No.953 admeasuring 14 R. of village Khudus, Taluka Malshiras. The trial Court on the basis that the suit was filed in the year 1988, dismissed the same on the said ground. 3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit, the Appellant herein filed an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.89 of 1998 which came to be partly allowed. As indicated above, the lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that the said suit was filed after 14 years of the execution of the Agreement of Sale. The lower Appellate Court held that the Appellant has failed to prove that the Respondent herein has put him in possession of the suit land. The case of the Appellant that the Respondent had received Rs.50/- from him towards the part consideration on 16-6-1987 by executing a receipt for the said amount was not accepted. The lower Appellate Court also recorded a finding of fact that the thumb impression on the said receipt does not tally with the thumb 3 impression of the Respondent herein. The lower Appellate Court, therefore, observed that the Appellant tried to base his case on a bogus document. The lower Appellate Court therefore did not deem it fit to exercise its discretion in favour of the Appellant. 4. The lower Appellate Court also did not deem it fit to exercise the discretion vested under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act in favour of the Appellant on the ground that the decree would cause prejudice to the Respondent inasmuch as a third party who is in possession of the land in question would be affected and, therefore, did not deem it fit to grant a decree of specific performance. 5. Both the Courts below therefore have recorded a finding as regards limitation and the the Appellate Court did not deem it fit to exercise discretion in favour of the Appellant. In my view, the above Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and the same is therefore dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the above Second Appeal, the Civil Application 1511 of 2004 does not survive and the same is 4 disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J]