1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR S.A. No. 496 OF 2007 Manik Sakharam Thelkar v. Sk. Aabdar Sk.Rahnam (dead) thr. L.Rs. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders Mr.N.R.Saboo Advocate for the appellant .... CORAM: A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 1st NOVEMBER, 2007. Heard Mr.Patil, learned counsel, for the appellant. None for respondents though served. 2. The learned counsel for appellant argued that the amount of total consideration alleged to have been agreed for sale of 2.20 acres of land in April 1988 for Rs.30,000/- is on a very lower side which gives rise to a suspicion about the nature of transaction in question. It is argued that the transaction was a money lending transaction without 2 licence and the amount of Rs.3500/- that was borrowed was also repaid. He further argued that since there was a prayer for refund of the earnest amount, the courts below ought to have considered the same in stead of granting the relief of specific performance of contract. 3. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the impugned judgments, it appears that the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the transaction was genuine and there was no element of money lending, as alleged by the appellant. During the course of hearing, Mr.Saboo also agreed that most specific instances of money lending by the respondent were neither pleaded nor proved nor any specific evidence was brought to that effect. The amount of Rs. 30,000/- in April 1988 towards total 3 consideration for purchase of 2.20 acres of land cannot be said to be on a lower side. In fact, that was the rate at that point of time. There is no scope to raise any suspicion about the same. Insofar as the contention that the amount of Rs.3,500/- was borrowed and paid back, the courts below have not accepted the said case and that is purely a question of fact. Insofar as the third contention is concerned, in a suit for specific performance of contract, the plaintiff is required to make an alternate prayer for refund of earnest amount. In the result, I do not find any substance in the second appeal and the same is dismissed. JUDGE /TA/