1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 618 OF 2005 Office notes, office memoranda of Corum, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s Judge’s orders. 1. Heard Shri. R.S.Bharaswadkar counsel appearing for appellant and Shri. S.S. Bora, counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 5. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiff in a Suit for specific performance of agreement bearing R.C.S. No. 91 of 1982, which was dismissed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Beed on 23/8/1985, which Judgment and Decree is further confirmed in R.C.A. 2 No. 69 of 1986 by the Additional District Judge, Beed on 19/3/1998. It is the case f the appellant that he entered into agreement of sale with respondent nos. 4 and 5 in respect of plot which was numbered as Plot No. 5 admeasuring 50 ft. x 35 ft. for consideration of Rs. 550/-, out of which Rs. 200/- was paid as an earnest money. The agreement was entered into on 2/2/1973 and it is at Exh. 53. As per the evidence, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have sold plot nos. 25 and 26 to respondent nos. 1 to 3 by registered sale deed dated 3/7/1979 and the sale deed is at exh. 71. However, it is pointed out by the first appellate court in para no. 15(A) that the boundaries and measurements of the said plot were entirely different from the plot which 3 was agreed. The plot sold to respondent nos. 1 to 3 was 60 ft. south – north and 100 ft. east – west and the plots on west and south were also different. So, it is observed in para no. 15-B that the boundaries and description of the plot agreed to be sold to the plaintiff/appellant does not tally with the boundaries and description of the plot sold to respondent no. 1 to 3. It is also admitted position that defendant nos. 4 and 5 did sale a plot to the appellant. However, according to appellant, it is another plot, which was not covered by agreement of sale. It may be noted that the agreement of sale was executed when there was no sanction to the lay out plan and when even N.A. Permission was not obtained. Considering the facts and 4 circumstances of the case and reasons given by the first appellate court and the trial court, no substantial question of law arises. The view taken by both the Courts below is proper and reasonable. Hence, Second Appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission. DATE : 01/07/2009 [ P.R. BORKAR ] JUDGE knp/SA618.05 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13