: 1 : Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.771 OF 2006 SECOND APPEAL NO.771 OF 2006 SECOND APPEAL NO.771 OF 2006 Shivappa Annappa Berad ...Appellant V/s. Bhupal Parisa Ainapure, Deceased, . Thru’ Suresh Bhuupal Ainapure & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.B. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr.Surel Shah, Advocate, for Respondent Nos.1A to 1E and 2 to 5. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and the learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. The appellant is the original 1st defendant against whom a decree for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property has been passed by the Trial Court. The said decree has been confirmed in the Appeal. 2. The first submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the finding recorded by the Courts below on the issue of readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs is perverse in as much as the certain amount paid by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 on : 2 : behalf of the appellant to a co-operative society could not have been taken into account as consideration amount payable under the said agreement. The second submission is that the operative part of the decree passed by the Trial Court directs that requisite permission for sale will have to be obtained from the concerned authority and application for permission for sale of the suit property made to the authorities under the Bombay Inferior Village Vatan Abolition Act, 1958 has been rejected. It is submitted that as of today there is no permission for sale granted under the Maharashtra Resettlement of the Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976. 3. The submission of the Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 is that in view of amendment of said Act of 1958 now permission is no longer required. He submitted that in any event, the aspect of permission is for the executing Court to consider while executing the decree. 4. I have considered the submissions. There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below that a sum of Rs.38,537.25, being the sale proceeds of the sugarcane of respondent Nos.1 to 5, was paid for clearing the outstanding dues payable : 3 : by the appellant to the society concerned. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, both the Courts below have found that the aforesaid amount has been paid by the original plaintiffs on behalf of the defendants. The said findings are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and no interference is called for in that behalf. 5. The decree passed by the Trial Court which has been confirmed by the Appellant Court is usual conditional decree which provides that a sale deed shall be executed after obtaining requisite permission from the concerned authorities. Whether such permission/permissions are necessary or not is a question which will be naturally decided by the executing Court in view of the mandate of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. In view of grant of conditional decree, the said submission does not affect the merits of the decree passed by the Trial Court. 7. Subject to what is stated above, there is no merit in the Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. : 4 : 8. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]