1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 50/2010 (Mohd.Ashfaque Sk. Abdul VERSUS Pundlik Kashinath Harde) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri H.M.S. Athar, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 26, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract of agreement of sale dated 03.11.1998 or in the alternative for refund of amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest. The appellant-defendant resisted the suit of the plaintiff and pleaded that the defendant had never executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 03.11.1998. According to the defendant, the document dated 03.11.1998 was a fabricated document. The defendant denied the receipt of Rs.1,20,000/- from the plaintiff. The parties tendered evidence and on an appreciation of the same, both the Courts came to a conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to grant of decree for specific performance of contract but, was entitled 2 to a decree for refund of amount of Rs.1,20,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the defendant towards earnest amount with interest @ 6% per annum from the date it became due till its actual realization. Though the defendant-appellant had denied the execution of the agreement of sale dated 03.11.1998, the Courts, on the basis of the evidence tendered by the attesting witness of the document dated 03.11.1998 and the other oral and documentary evidence on record, came to a conclusion that an agreement of sale was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE