1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No.566/2010 Shri Bhojraj s/o Daulat Gaikwad vs. Sanjay Govind Khanorkar =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. C. F. Bhagwani, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED :5/1/2011. 1] By the above Second Appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 419/2009, by which, the judgment and decree dated 2.4.2002 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Umrer in Regular Civil Suit No.42/2001 came to be confirmed. 2] The appellant is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.42/2001, which was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement dated 27.4.1992 in respect of the suit land. There are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in respect of payments made by the plaintiff to the defendant, this receipt issued by the defendant of having received the amount from the 2 plaintiff as consideration for the sale of land in question. There is also concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below negating the case of the defendant that it was a loan transaction. Both the Courts below have held that the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff has been brought home by the oral as well as documentary evidence. 3] In my opinion, both the Courts having come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance by recording concurrent findings of facts the above appeal, therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed. CAS No. 1064/2010 In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, the civil application does not survive. The same is disposed of. JUDGE Ambulkar