:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.458 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.458 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.458 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.840 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.840 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.840 OF 2008 Shri Rajendra Vithal Wagh & Ors ...Appellants. v. Shri Ashok Kukar Kisanlal Choudhari & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.P.N.Joshi , adv. for the Appellants. Mr.J.B.Kocheta & P.D.Purway , advs. for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 4th September, 2008. DATE: 4th September, 2008. DATE: 4th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, who are the original defendant nos.5 and 6 and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs. 2. The plaintiff nos.1 to 3 filed special civil suit no.270 of 1990 for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant no.1 as Karta of the joint family had entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs on 26-3-1985 and had agreed to sell the suit land for a consideration of Rs.75,000/-. Out of the consideration amount the defendant no.1 had received Rs.30,000/- as earnest money. Sale-deed was to be executed on :2: 15-4-1985. Before that date, further amount of Rs.20,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant no.1. According to the plaintiffs, they offered to pay Rs.20,000/- to the defendant no.1 on 2-4-1985 but he avoided to meet the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were also ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.45,000/- and to get the sale-deed executed. On 30-6-1985, plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance apprehending that the defendant no.1 was likely to sell the property to some third person by obtaining more money. Later on, the plaintiffs made an amendment in the plaint and contended that after filing of the suit by them, they had come to know that on 26-7-1985, the defendant no.1 had sold the suit property by bifurcating the same, in favour of the defendant nos.5 and 6 for a consideration of Rs.25,000/- each and had executed registered sale-deeds in their favour. In view of this, plaintiffs impleaded defendant nos.5 and 6 also as a parties in the suit. 3. The defendant no.1 filed written statement for and on behalf of the defendant nos.1 to 4, who are brothers inter-se. They contested suit on several grounds. They denied that there was an agreement for sale and that they had received any amount as earnest money. Several other defences were taken. Defendant nos.5 and 6 contested suit by filing written statement. According to them on 11-1-1985, the defendant no.1 had :3: entered into an agreement with them to sell the suit property. Thus, the agreement in favour of the defendant nos.5 and 6 was prior in time to the agreement dated 26-3-1985 in favour of the plaintiffs. According to them, on the basis of agreement dated 11-1-1985, the defendant no.1 had executed registered sale deeds on 26-7-1985 in their favour and they were put in possession. According to them, they are bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1. 4. The trial Court framed several issues and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial Court specifically came to conclusion that the defendant nos.5 and 6 had failed to prove that their agreement with the defendant no.1 was prior in time than the agreement of the plaintiffs. The trial Court also held that defendant nos.5 and 6 had failed to prove that they were bonafide purchasers of the value without notice of the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1. Being aggrieved by the said decree passed by the trial Court, defendant nos.5 and 6 filed regular civil appeal no.47 of 2001. Original defendant nos.1 to 4 did not file any appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed by the District Court, therefore, original defendant nos.5 and 6 have preferred the present second appeal. 5. As pointed out above, both the Courts below have :4: given concurrent findings that the defendant nos.5 and 6 have failed to prove that their agreement with the defendant no.1 was prior in time than the agreement of the plaintiffs with the defendant no.1 and also that they are bonafide purchasers for the value without any notice of previous agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. These are concurrent findings of the facts. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the matter, therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. 6. As the appeal itself is dismissed, Civil Application No.840 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)