1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2003 Shivrajappa s/o Baslingappa Bhadrashete .. APPELLANT VERSUS Prayagabai w/o Annarao Malge & another .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.V.Chandole, Advocate holding for Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.G. Chincholikar,Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 2 nd September, 2009 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments records by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff contends that he has agreed to purchase agricultural property from defendant no. 1 by executing an agreement to sell on 15-4-1977. It is contended that agreed consideration was Rs.12,051/- and Rs. 7,000/- were paid at the time of execution of agreement. Sale-deed was to be executed during Gudhipadwa of 1982-1983. However, 2 defendant did not perform his part of the contract. As such, plaintiff was constrained to approach the court and file suit seeking specific performance of contract. 3 Defendants appeared and controverted the contentions raised by plaintiff by filing written statement. According to defendant, there is no agreement executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant has also denied receipt of amount of consideration towards part payment. Defendant also questioned readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, even if, it is assumed that such agreement is executed. Defendant as such prays for dismissal of the suit. 4 Trial court after recording evidence of the parties reached conclusion that plaintiff has not substantiated his case and as such dismissed the suit. Appeal was presented by plaintiff raising exception to the judgment passed by the trial court being Regular Civil Appeal no. 190/1997 which came to be heard and disposed of by the 2 nd Additional District Judge, Latur on 15-7-2000. 5 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. 3 Both the courts below have concurrently recorded finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish execution of agreement by defendant no. 1 in his favour. Courts below have also recorded finding that the plaintiff has not establish readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The courts below have also recorded finding that the suit presented by plaintiff is beyond prescribed period of limitation. Reasons recorded in support of the finding are proper and there does not appear any infirmity in recording reasons. Arguments advanced are essentially matters relating to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa442.03.odt