1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2007 (Smt. Sumati Prabhakar Ingole .v. Mrs. Madhu Suresh Bhargava and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.A. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri D.L. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM : C.L. PANGARKAR, J. 21ST JANUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The respondent No.1 had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract against the present appellant and rest of the respondents. It was her case that the appellant's father Ramkrushna had entered into an agreement of sale of the suit property with her. But, the sale deed could not be executed on the ground that the father had assured that he would obtain the consent of his children to the execution of sale deed. But he never did it. The plaintiff, therefore, ultimately instituted a suit for specific performance of contract. The suit was resisted by the defendant/ appellant on the ground that the father had executed a gift deed in her favour on 22.09.1986 and the agreement is dated 03.02.1986. It is apparent that the gift deed is executed after the agreement of sale was entered into. 2 The Courts below have found that there was an agreement of sale between Ramkrushna and the plaintiff-Madhu. Although the defendant had raised a plea that the agreement was not executed by Ramkrushna and that the plaintiff was a trespasser, pleas were rejected by the Courts below and there are concurrent findings to that effect. The only ground which was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that for two years, the plaintiff did not take any action in filing suit and she filed a suit only the father of defendant No.1 had issued notice to her in the year 1989. According to him, this delay on the part of the plaintiff in institution of suit for two years itself suggests that the agreement was not executed. There is no reason to draw such inference. The Courts below had considered this evidence. It is not the case that the consideration mentioned in the agreement was inadequate or grossly inadequate, suggesting that the document may not be genuine. In view of this, I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in the matter. The appeal stands dismissed in limine. JUDGE