* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 1171 OF 2005 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1652 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 1171 OF 2005 Mirza Arifbeg Ayyug/Ayyubeg ...... Appellant V/s. Husen Ibrahim Shaikh & Ors. ...... Respondents. == = = = = = Mr.M.M. Sathaye, Adv. For appellant. None for respondents. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated: 28 th April, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. This Second Appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 4th April, 2005 passed in Civil Appeal No. 262 of 1997 and judgment and decree dated 26th March, 1997 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 969 of 1994. By the impugned judgment and orders, suit filed by the appellant was dismissed and the appeal preferred by him against the judgment of dismissal of suit was also dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, respondents no.1 to 3 had executed an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property vide agreement dated 13th April, 1993. The total consideration for the transaction of sale was of Rs.6,12,000/- . On the date of the agreement, the appellant had paid a sum of * 2 * Rs.50,000/- as earnest money to these respondents. It appears that thereafter instead of conveying the suit property to the appellants, respondents no.1 to 3 by the sale-deed dated 28th September, 1994 sold a portion of the property to respondents no.4 to 8. The appellant then filed the instant suit for a declaration that the sale-deed in favour of respondents no.4 to 8 is null and void and sought permanent injunction to restrain all the respondents from transferring the title of the suit property to a third person or creating encumbrances thereon. The appellant had unfortunately not sought relief of specific performance of agreement of sale in his favour. 4. Respondents no.1 to 3 contended in the defence that the agreement of sale sought to be relied upon by the appellant is a forged document executed on a blank stamp paper, signed by these respondents by way of security of loan transaction. They denied any transaction of sale with the appellant. The trial court considered the case of both the sides, the evidence led before it and dismissed the suit holding that the sale-deed inter- se the respondents is a valid document. 5. The appeal court, considered the matter and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not sought further relief of specific performance, though being able to seek the same. As already mentioned above, the appellant had failed to seek the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale in his favour. Therefore, the suit was clearly hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act. In that circumstance, there is nothing more to be considered in the matter. The suit and the appeal have been rightly dismissed by both the courts below. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. * 3 * 6. With the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the above Civil Application does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. . [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]