IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.401 OF 2010 (PRALHAD RAMCHANDRAJI TAKARKHEDE THR. LRS...VS.. KAMLAKAR MAHADEORAO CHOUDHARY & ANR.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.D. Harode, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Shilpa Tapdiya h/f. Mr. V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 17, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is original defendant. The respondent No.1/ plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale of a house. The plaintiff pleaded that he had entered into an agreement for purchasing the suit for consideration of Rs. 23,000/- per guntha. The agreement of sale was executed on 25.05.1998. An amount of Rs.8,000/- was paid to the defendant as earnest amount and amount of Rs.3,000/- was further paid on 27.06.1997. Though the defendant had agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 31.11.1998, the defendant failed to execute the same and therefore, the suit was instituted. 3. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement. It was the case of the defendant that he was not the owner of the suit house and he was merely residing in the suit house with the permission of Maroti Takarkhede who was the real owner of the suit house. The defendant pleaded that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff had got executed an agreement of sale dated 25.05.1998. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. 4. Both the courts, on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.23,000/- per guntha. The Courts further held that the defendant was the owner of the suit house and he had received an amount of Rs.11,000/- towards the consideration. The Courts held that the defendant had committed the breach of the contract though the plaintiff was every ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 5. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of fact based on proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The only submission made on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was not the owner of the suit house is liable to be rejected in view of the clear findings by both the Courts that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the appellant/ defendant was the owner of the suit house. 6. Since no specific question of law arises for consideration of this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR.