IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2008 SMT. MUMTAZ ANSARI AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus ANAND PANDURANG VERLEKAR ... Respondent Mr. P. A. Kamat,Advocate for the appellants. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 17th March, 2009 P.C. This is an appeal by an unsuccessful defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge,S.D., Margao. 2. The respondent had instituted a suit for recovery of possession and damages against the present appellants. The plaintiff/ respondent contended that he had purchased the suit property from one Bepari under a sale deed dated 03.07.1985. He called upon the defendants to vacate the property. The defendants failed. Hence, the plaintiff instituted a suit. 3. The defendants filed written statement and contended that they were the mundkars of the suit property. They also contended that they had entered into a contract for purchase of the suit property with the Vendor Shri Bepari on 21.01.1983. It was their contention that they had paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the said Bepari under the contract and they were put in possession under the contract of agreement of sale. They, therefore, contended that they were entitled to protection under Section 53(A) of Transfer of Property Act. 4. The learned Judge of the Trial Court, found as a fact that the defendants / appellants are not entitled to any protection under Section 53(A) in view of the fact that they had failed to show their willingness to perform the part of the contract. 5. The appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the learned Judge of the Trial Court. 6. Shri Kamat, learned Counsel for appellants, submits before me that the findings recorded by both the Courts below, were not correct. According to him, there was no proper appreciation of the evidence and facts. He submits that in fact, there was no question of the defendants/ appellants showing their willingness qua the present respondent. 7. The fact is that the appellants are seeking protection as against the present plaintiff/ respondent. It is not disputed that the price that was settled between Bepari and the present appellants, was Rs.10,000/- and out of that, only Rs.3,000/- were paid to the said Bepari and rest of the price has not been paid. The defendants / appellants have had an opportunity to institute a suit for specific performance and limitation was available for institution of such suit. After filing of the present suit, the defendant did not file any suit for specific performance nor did they make a prayer in the present suit to add Shri Bepari as a party to the present suit. The learned Judges of the Trial Court, as a fact, have found that the defendants were not ready to perform their part of the contract and in view of that they were not entitled to any protection under Section 53(A) of the Act. The question as to whether the defendants were or were not ready to perform the part of the contract,is a purely question of fact and that there being concurrent findings on these facts, the appeal cannot be admitted on the question of fact at all. I do not see any perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Judges of the Courts below. Mr. Kamat contended before me that the compensation that has been awarded @ Rs.300/- per month, is not correct and the Courts below should not have relied on the evidence of an Architect to award such compensation. The Courts below have considered the evidence of Architect. The plaintiff has stated on oath that he is entitled to Rs.300/- per month as damages. The Architect has supported his evidence. On the other hand, the defendants did not care to enter into witness box and rebut the evidence of the plaintiff and in view of this non-rebuttal, the learned Judges of the Courts below, were right in awarding the compensation @ Rs.300/- per month. In any case, this cannot be a substantial question of law. There is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal, the appeal is dismissed in limine. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA