1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.78 OF 2011 ( PRAFUL MAROTRAO CHANDURKAR..VS..SMT. SHOBHA PURUSHOTTAM BHUTE & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.Kendurkar with Mr. S.C. Sangamnerkar, Advocates for Appellant. Mr. A.S.Kilor, Advocate with Respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2011. Heard the leaned counsel for the parties. The appellant is objector before the executing Court. The Respondent No.1 had filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the respondent No.2. The suit was decreed against respondent No.2 by a judgment dated 30.09.1983. The respondent No.1 filed execution proceedings against the respondent No.2 for execution of the sale deed and for seeking possession of the property. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the appellant opposed the delivery of possession and therefore, the respondent No.1 moved an application before the executing Court under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On receiving the notice from the Court, the appellant filed an objection under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing Court tried the objection and the same was rejected. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed by the executing Court was also dismissed. The appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the 2 executing Court and the first appellate Court by this second appeal. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgments passed by both the Courts, it appears that the concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts after considering the evidence on record that the objector/ appellant had failed to prove that the suit property was purchased by his father / respondent No.2 from joint family funds. Both the Courts concurrently found that the objection filed by the appellant was liable to be dismissed mainly in view of his admissions in his cross-examination. The Courts observed that the plot was allotted to the respondent No.2, father of the appellant, by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. The appellant had admitted in his cross- examination that he did not remember as to when the plot was alloted by the Nagpur Improvement Trust to his father and he was unable to state the price at which the plot was purchased by his father from the Nagpur Improvement Trust. The appellant admitted that his father had paid price of the plot by installments but he was not aware as to how many installments were paid by his father to the Nagpur Improvement Trust. The appellant was unaware of most of the relevant facts in regard to the purchase of the suit property by his father from the Nagpur Improvement Trust. The appellant not only admitted that he had not made any application for mutation in the Corporation record but had also admitted that the property was belonging to his father. The Courts found that the appellant had utterly failed to prove that the suit property was coparcenery property in which the objector / appellant had a right. For recording the findings of facts, the Courts mainly relied on the admission of 3 the appellant himself. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The substantial questions of law stated in the memorandum of the appeal do not arise for consideration in this case. The executing Court had rightly decided the objection filed by the appellant under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. At this juncture the learned counsel for the appellant, on behalf of the appellant, seeks six months’ time for vacating the suit premises. Mr. Kilor, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposes this prayer and states that the appellant has troubled the respondents since long and there is no propriety in granting any time to vacate the suit premises. However, considering the fact that the appellant is occupying the suit premises since long the appellant is granted three months’ time to vacate the suit premises. The appellant should positively vacate the suit premises on or before 12th May, 2011. JUDGE RR..