1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 101 OF 2006 Shri Dinanath Kashinath Gurav, ) Age 60 years,Occ: Labour , ) reidig at Deaul-Bherse, Taluka: ) Alibag, District: Raigad. ).. Appellant (Org.Plaintiff) Vs. 1. Shri Kiran Ramdas Naik, ) Age 43 years, Occ: Agriculture and ) service ) 2. Shri Ajit Sitaram Naik, ) Age 43 years, Occ: Agriculture & ) Service. ) 3. Shri Prashant Dattaram Naik, ) Age 41 years, Occ: Agriculture & ) Service. ) 4. Shri Prakash Raghunath Kavale, ) Age 41 years, Occu: Agriculture & ) Service. ) 5. Shri Ramesh Vasudev Mhatre, ) Age 43 years, Occ: Agriculture & ) Service. ) 6. Sau.Ranjana Vasant Bhagat ) Age 46 years, Occ: Household. ) 7. Rajaram Kashinath Guav ) Sice deceased, through legal ) representatives - ) 7A. Rajeshree Rajaram Gurav ) 2 Age about 46 years. ) 7B. Jitendra Rajaram Gurav, ) Age about 16 years. ) 7C Supriya Rajaram Gurav ) Age about 14 years. ) No.7B and 7C minors, represented ) through Respondent No.7A being mother and ) natural guardian Nos. 7A to 7C all residing at ) Deaul-Bherse,Taluka Alibag, Dist. Raigad. ).. Respondents (Nos. 1 to 5 – orig.Defts. No. 6 & 7 – orig. plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3.) Ms. Gauri Godse, Advocate,for the appellant. Ms.Bhagyashri Joshi i/b. Mr.D.N.Salvi, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Smt. Anjali Helekar, Advocate, for respondent No.6. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 24th July, 2009. JUDGMENT. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff was the owner of certain land admeasuring about 2 hectares and 5 Ares. The plaintiff agreed to sell the said land to the defendants and a sale deed was executed and registered on 3 15.10.1993, wherein consideration was shown to be Rs.1,10,000/- and admittedly, whole of that amount of consideration was received by the plaintiff. As per the terms of the sale deed, that the land was to be measured and in case on measurement the land would be less than 2 hectares 5 Ares, the plaintiff would pay back at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per are or guntha and in case the area was found to be more than 2 hectares and 5 Ares, the defendants would pay th extra price at the same rate. According to the plaintiff, as per the agreement, the consideration was Rs.2,50,000/- and not Rs.1,10,000/- and, therefore, he is entitled to recover amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. Alternatively, it is contended that if it is found that the agreed rate was Rs.1,000/- per guntha, the total consideration could be Rs.2,05,000/- and, therefore, the defendants are liable to pay him further amount of Rs.95,000/-. The defendants denied all these contentions. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appeal was also dismissed. 2. The alleged agreement for sale on the basis of which the suit was filed is not produced. It appears that no such agreement of sale was executed. There was oral agreement. On the contrary, there is a registered sale deed which clearly shows that the consideration was agreed to be Rs.1,10,000/- which was fully paid. In such circumstances, it is difficult to find any fault with the concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below. I find no substantial 4 question of law involved in the present Appeal. The Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)