: 1 : SD 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.798 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.798 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.798 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1092 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1092 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1092 OF 2007 Yashwant Dhondiram More ...Appellant V/s. Vimal Dattatraya Kadam & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Pratap Bhosale, Advocate, for the Appellant. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. The appellant is the 1st defendant in the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein. 2. The case of the 1st respondent is that the appellant and the 2nd defendant agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the 1st respondent by an agreement dated 23rd October, 1989 and that the 1st respondent paid total consideration of Rs.54,000/- to the appellant and the 2nd defendant. Case of the 1st respondent is that she was placed in possession of the suit property at the time of execution of the agreement for sale. The Trial Court decreed the suit by granting perpetual injunction restraining the : 2 : defendants in the suit from interfering with possession of the 1st respondent over the suit property. The Court found that the 1st respondent was placed in possession of the suit property in part performance of the suit agreement. 3. An Appeal preferred by the present appellant to the District Court has been dismissed. The Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court as regards execution of the suit agreement, payment of consideration and delivery of possession. 4. After having heard the learned Advocate for the appellant, I find that there is no substantial question of law involved in the Appeal. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below that the appellant and the 2nd defendant executed an agreement for sale in respect of the suit property in favour of the 1st respondent for the total consideration of Rs.58,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.54,000/- has been received by the appellant and the 2nd defendant. In view of recitals in the agreement, the Courts below found that the 1st respondent was placed in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the Courts below have granted benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 to the 1st : 3 : respondent. 5. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts. There is no merit in the Second Appeal and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 6. In view of this order, Civil Application No.1092 of 2007 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]