1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO.624/06. Jamnadas Maheshgawli and ors. ..vs.. Gunwant Bhusari. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 27th February, 2008. 1. Heard Mr.S.D.Malke, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.C.S.Kaptan, Advocate for the respondent. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the original plaintiffs. Original plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration, possession, compensation and mesne profits. The plaintiffs claim possession of Survey No.18 and 21. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they had not in fact entered into any agreement of sale of the suit property with defendant. It was merely a loan transaction initiated at the instance of one R.S.Moon, who is 2 relative of the plaintiffs. The defendant had agreed to advance the loan to the plaintiffs only on the condition of execution of such agreement that it was never to be acted upon. The plaintiff sought a declaration, possession and compensation of the suit property. 3. The defendant had resisted the suit contending that it was a real agreement of sale. It was not a money lending transaction. The defendant also filed a counter claim in the said suit claiming specific performance of contract of agreement of sale. The trial court found that the contentions as were raised by the plaintiffs were not correct and the defendant was entitled to decree for specific performance. Holding so, the trial court granted a decree in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs, therefore, preferred an appeal before the district judge. The district judge concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal and being aggrieved by that, this appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended before me that the price of the land was very much inadequate and that itself would suggest that that was not real agreement of sale. 3 5. After having gone through the evidence, it is found that there is no evidence on the part of the plaintiffs to suggest that a similarly situated land was any time sold at a more price than what is being offered by the defendant. It was contended that it was a money lending transaction and document was executed as security. It is brought to my notice that the plaintiffs themselves examined one R.S.Moon through whom this transaction has allegedly taken place, as a witness. This witness has clearly stated that the transaction in question is a real agreement of sale and it was sought to be sold because the plaintiffs wanted to purchase another land. This evidence has been properly appreciated by the courts below. They found that the plaintiffs' own witness who is close relative of the plaintiff has clearly admitted that it was the agreement of sale. In view of this, I do not think that courts below committed any error in appreciating the evidence. No perversity is shown to me. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE pzc