1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 649 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1670 OF 2008 Dadasaheb Balkrishna Patil ........Appellant versus Souakkatai Prabhakar Kamble & ors........ Respondents. Mr. A.M. Sarogi for the Appellant CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 20th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Sarogi learned counsel for the appellant. Appellant is the original defendant no.7 and respondent nos.1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs. Suit was filed for partition and separate possession against respondent nos. 3 and 4. The respondent nos. 7 and 8 are original defendant nos.5 and 6. Respondent nos. 7 and 8 and the present appellant are claiming to be the bonafide purchaser. 2. The trial court decreed the suit for partition and separate possession. The agricultural land purchased by respondent nos. 7 and 8 is directed to be adjusted from the share of respondent no.3. The trial court, however, refused to adjust the land which present appellant/original defendant no.7 is alleged to have purchased in the share of respondent no.3. The 2 defendant no.7/appellant therefore filed appeal before the lower appellate court which was also dismissed and therefore the present second appeal. 3. The trial court did not grant any relief in favour of the appellant/defendant no.7 on the ground that the appellant/original defendant no.7 agreed to purchase from respondent no.3/original defendant no.2, land Gat no.268. In pursuance of this agreement no sale deed was executed. The trial court has also held that mere agreement of sale does not transfer any interest in the suit property in favour of the appellant. The fact that the appellant/defendant no.7 did not file suit for specific performance, also weighed in favour of the plaintiff and respondent no.3. The trial court consequently decreed the suit for respondent nos. 1 and 2 for partition and separate possession. However no relief was granted to the appellant who is original defendant no.7. The appellate court confirmed the finding of the trial court. After hearing Mr. Sarogi and after perusal of the judgment of the lower courts below , find that the findings recorded by the lower courts below are recorded after appreciating the evidence on record. I do not find any perversity in appreciation of evidence, No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 4. Needless to mention that the impugned order or the observations made in the present order will not come in the way 3 of appellant in prosecuting his claim, for specific performance by filing independent proceedings and the same shall be decided independently on its own merit and in accordance with the law. With these observations the second appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal the civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (R.V. More, J.)