1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.332/2011 Smt. Bhagirathibai wd/o Amrut Titarmare and others ...Versus... Sambhashivrao s/o Subbarao Kodali Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. [Shri Rohit Joshi, Adv. for appellants] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 10.08.2011. Heard. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Courts below have committed an error of law in perversely appreciating the evidence of the witnesses and in particular the rice mill owner who is said to have paid Rs.2,20,000/- the price of the sale proceeds to the plaintiff/respondent at the relevant time. He invited my attention to the cross examination of Shriniwas (P.W.3) and argued that there is admission in his evidence to show that he did not maintain any accounts in relation to the money paid to the respondent-plaintiff and that is why his evidence ought to have been rejected. According to him, the long rope given by the Courts below that in rural areas the accounts are 2 not maintained even by the rice mill owners is an example of perversity by the Courts below. He further argued that the Courts below have erred in exercising discretion, which is judicial discretion in the matter of specific performance of contract. According to him, looking to the fact that it was highly doubtful whether the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- was really paid that too in cash, the Courts below ought to have been slow in making decree for specific performance of contract. That, according to him, constitutes substantial question of law. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and I have also perused the judgments recorded by the Courts below. At the outset, I find that the Courts below have found the evidence of rice mill owner P.W.3  Shriniwas probable and both the Courts below have thus based their findings on the said aspect regarding payment of Rs.2,20,000/- to the respondent  plaintiff on preponderance of probabilities. In so far as the maintenance of accounts is concerned, it is true that the rice mill owner did not maintain the accounts to prove the payment of the said amount to the respondent  plaintiff but then it cannot be said that the view taken by the Courts below that in rural areas maintenance of account is not to be found as a matter of rule and therefore, the evidence cannot be rejected on that score, is 3 wrong. It is not possible for this Court to substitute the view taken by the Courts below on the said issue. It is further seen that Exh.19 is the document of agreement which is signed by Bhagirathibai and her two sons as consenters and this document recites all these receipts of payment. This document has been proved as Exh.19 and it clearly appears that it was not said that the said document was suspicious or obtained by fraud. This document (Exh.19) read by this Court and entire evidence considered by the Courts below clearly show that there is evidence in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. That being so, it is not possible to accept the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants while examining the view taken by the Courts below concurrently. In the result, I do not find any merit in the present second appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw