IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.380 OF 2010. (GANGARAM GANPATRAO KAWALE...VS... SUBHASH NANAJI BHARADWAJ & OTH.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.M.Bhangde, Advocate for Appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract. According to the plaintiff the defendants No.1 and 2 had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff by an agreement of sale executed on 22.01.1984. The Defendants No.1 and 2 had agreed to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs.20,500/- and an amount of Rs.400/- was paid by the plaintiff as the earnest amount. The balance consideration was to be paid on 02.05.1984 i.e. on the day of “Akshay Tritiya” at the time of execution of the sale deed. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendants No.1 and 2 did not perform their part and hence, the suit was instituted. 3. Defendants No.1 to 3 denied the case of the plaintiff and also denied that there was a valid agreement of sale executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. It was admitted by defendants No.1 to 3 that the property was owned by defendants No.1 to 3 but it was denied that defendant No.2 has signed on the agreement of sale. It was the case of the defendants that the sister of defendant Nos.1 and 2 was marriageable and since some guests were to visit their house for marriage talks, the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.400/-. The defendants pleaded that defendant No.1 was in a hurry to take the amount and hence, he signed on the paper at the instance of the plaintiff which was later on treated by the plaintiff as “Isarchitthi”. The defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. Both the Courts, on appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that there was an agreement of sale executed by the defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff on 22.01.1984 for a consideration of Rs.20,500/-. The Courts held that the amount of Rs.400/- was not accepted by defendant No.1 as earnest amount. Since the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving the agreement of sale dated 22.01.1984 and the defendant had succeeded in proving that defendant No.1 required an amount of Rs.400/- from the plaintiff to entertain his guests, the Courts held that there was no reason to decide the issue whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The Courts also observed that the document dated 22.01.1984 was a suspicious document and lacked in some of the material particulars. 5. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR.