1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 299 of 2008 (Jankiram Pandurang Jadhao Vs. Gajanan Vishnurao Awate) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 26 th August, 2008 Heard Shri Khan for the appellant, and Shri Kilor for the respondent. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for grant of a decree for specific performance of contract. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff on 21/11/1995, for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had paid the entire consideration by 15/5/1996 and had also paid an amount of Rs. 3,400/- for purchasing the stamps for execution of the sale deed, the defendant avoided to execute the sale deed and asked for an additional amount of Rs. 16,000/-. 2 In this background, the suit was instituted by the plaintiff for grant of a decree for specific performance of contract. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he had agreed to sell the suit plot to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-, but since there was a well and a constructed plinth in the suit plot, it was orally agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant to pay an additional amount towards the plinth and price of well. Since the plaintiff avoided to pay the additional amount to the defendant, the defendant had rightly refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The trial and the first appellate Court recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. The Courts held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs. 56,000/- to the defendant towards the sale consideration. The Courts then recorded a finding that the plaintiff had 3 succeeded in proving that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and it was the defendant who had committed a breach of the contract. Both the Courts discarded the theory of the defendant that the plaintiff had agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the defendant towards the well and the constructed plinth. Both the Courts were, therefore, of the view that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract on payment of the balance consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused both the judgments in detail. Both the Courts have considered the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, to record the findings against the defendant. Since both the Courts have held that the plaintiff had proved the contract dated 21/11/1995 and had also proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, the suit of the plaintiff was rightly decreed. After the judgment was rendered by the first appellate Court on 26th of November, 2004, the sale deed 4 of the suit property has been executed in favour of the plaintiff, through the Court. Since the findings recorded by both the Court are pure findings of facts, they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP