1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.489 OF 2009 Maheboobkha s/o Abbaskha, Age: 70 years, Occ: Agri. R/o. Partur, Tq. Partur, District Jalna. .. Appellant Versus 1. Vishnu s/o Bapurao Mule, Age: Major, Occ: Agri. 2. Dynanoba s/o Bapurao Mule, Age: Major, Occ: Agri., 3. Chatragun s/o Bapurao Mule, Age: Major, Occ: Agri., 4. Laxman s/o Bapurao Mule, Age: Major, Occ: Agri., 5. Rama s/o Bapurao Mule, Age: Major, Occ: Agri., All R/o. Masla, Tq. Partur, District Jalna. .. Respondents ... Mr. N.J. Pahune Patil, Advocate for appellant. Mr. P.S. Shinde, Advocate holding for Mr. S.G. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.1. ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 2 . Heard Counsel. 2. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellant is the original plaintiff, who had filed suit (R.C.S. No. 314/2000) for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08-08-1996. The agreed consideration was allegedly Rs. 48,000/-. He asserted that he had paid amount of Rs. 20,000/- by way of earnest money. The agreement to sell indicated the payment of only Rs. 1700/-. The appellant alleged that he was inducted in actual possession. The agreement was with the father of the defendants. It appears that the appellant initiated civil action after the death of the father of the defendants. Their father died on 09-05-1998. The appellant thereafter staked the claim. There was also litigation of mutation entries fought by the appellant. Both the Courts below have rendered the concurrent findings of fact that the appellant failed to 3 prove payment of substantial amount i.e. Rs. 20,000/- towards part of the consideration. It has been noticed that only Rs. 1700/- which is a paltry amount was paid and there was no adequate evidence to infer readiness and willingness on the part of the appellant. The trial Court had dismissed the suit in its entirety. The First Appellate Court, however, partly allowed the appeal of the present appellant and directed the refund of Rs. 1700/-. Findings of the Courts below are based on material which seems to have properly appreciated. No substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal. So, in view of "Gurdev Kaur & Ors. vs. Kaki, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1975", the Second Appeal is dismissed. Liberty to prefer remedy as is permissible under the law in the context of penalty imposed as a result of impounding of document of agreement to sell. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] sut/NOV09/sa489.09