1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2009 The Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post, Government of India, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi and others. .. Appellants Versus Smt. Shameemunnisabegum w/o Dr. Mujeeb Ahmed, R/o. Majeeb Complex, Degloor Naka, Nanded and another. .. Respondents Mr. Nitin S. Choudhary, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 11th JUNE, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. Present second appeal is preferred by original defendant Nos. 1,2 2 and 3 against the judgment and decree dated 31-08-2005 passed by IIIrd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Nanded in R.C.A. No. 106/2003 arising out of the judgment and decree passed by IInd Civil Judge, S.D. Nanded in R.C.S. No.235/2000 on 03-03-2003. Respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff filed R.C.S. No. 235/2000 for recovery of amount of Rs. 59,000/- as damages. 3. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that he is owner and possessor of building/complex bearing NO. 9-4-1344 known as Mujib Complex situated at Nanded Hyderabad road near Degloor Naka, Nanded. As the appellant was required some suitable premises in Sarafa locality for post office, respondent No. 1 shown her willingness to let out her property. For that purpose, the appellant issued letter dated 15-05-1998 Exhibit - 30 in favour of respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff. On the basis of said letter, respondent No. 1 carried out repairs and additional work in her premises. Thereafter, the appellant failed to shift their post office in the suit premises on the ground that they procure some other suitable premises. Therefore, respondent No. 1 filed suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 59,000/- as damages including interest. The trial Court considered Exhibit - 30 and evidence led by respondent No.1 and held that respondent No. 1 is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.17,825/- from the appellants towards damages with interest @ 18% p. a. Said judgment and decree came to be challenged by the appellants in the District Court by preferring R.C.A. No. 106/2003 on the ground that 3 there is no any agreement regarding rental accommodation for the post office with respondent No. 1. It is the case of the appellants that respondent No. 1 herself suo motu moved application on 23-04-1998 before Superintendent of post office, Shivajinagar, Nanded and submitted that she is in possession of one block admeasuring 20 feet x 18 feet situated at Nanded Hyderabad road, near Degloor Naka, Nanded. The Superintendent of Post Office Shivajinagar, Nanded vide their letter dated 15-05-1998 informed respondent No. 1 for completion of additional work and alterations for proper function of post office. It is the case of the appellants that respondent No. 1 has not informed about such work and therefore, they acquired another suitable premises. Considering evidence on record, the appellant Court held that respondent No. 1 is entitled to sum of Rs. 13,000/- with interest @6% p. a. only. To that extent, the appellant Court modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court dated 31-08-2005 passed in R.C.A. No. 106/2005, the appellant preferred second appeal on the ground that both the Courts below failed to appreciate that there was no agreement regarding rental accommodation for the post office between the appellants and respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff. Respondent No. 1 on her own moved application to Superintendent of Post office on 23-04-1998 and submitted that she is ready and willing to provide her premises for establishing post office. 4 4. Both the Courts below considered Exhibit-30 i. e. letter dated 15-05-1998 issued by the authority directing respondent No. 1 to carry out some additions and alterations in the premises. After going through both the judgments of appellate as well as trial court, it is clear that as per letter at Exhibit - 30 appellants themselves directed respondent No. 1 to carry out some additional alterations in her premises for shifting their post office in Sarafa locality. Without giving any reasons, the appellants procured another premises and failed to shift their post office in the premises offered by respondent No. 1. It is clear from letter dated 15-05-1998 that on the basis of assurance given by the appellants, respondent No. 1 carried out some alterations and furniture work in her premises. Considering these facts, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal. Both the Courts concurrently held that on the basis of letter at Exhibit-30 dated 15-05-1998, respondent No. 1 carried out some alterations and furniture work in her premises and for that purpose, she filed suit for recovery of said amount as damages. In any case, the appellate court modified decree passed by the trial Court to the extent that respondent No. 1 is entitled to sum of Rs. 13,000/- with interest @ 6% p. a. 5. Considering concurrent findings of both the Courts below and amount involved in the present second appeal, I do not find any substance in the present second appeal. Second Appeal is dismissed summarily with no order as to costs. 5 6. In view of the dismissal of present Second Appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application and the same is also dismissed. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/JUN09/sa220.09