1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.884 OF 2003 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1342 OF 2003 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1333 OF 2008 Shankar Basappa Mashal & Anr. : Appellants versus Smt. Bhagirathibai Rajshekhar Bhairappa & ors. : Respondents. Mr.V.B.Naik for the Appellants. Ms.Manjiri Parasnis i/by Mr.G.S.Godbole for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 21st JULY 2008. P.C. 1. The above Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 7.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solapur by which the Decree of specific performance dated 6.8.1999 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur came to be confirmed. 2 2. The Appellants are the original Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.31 of 1977 filed by the Respondents herein for specific performance of contract in respect of agricultural land bearing Gat No.168 admeasuring 15-H, 45 R, situated at village Goudgaon, Taluka Akkalkot, District Solapur and for other consequential reliefs. It was the case of the Plaintiff in the said suit that the Defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff in presence of panchas on 29.3.1974 and the total consideration was fixed at Rs.24,000/-. Out of the said amount, the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1901.77 ps in the Land Development Bank, Branch at Akkalkot and thereby satisfied the loan of Defendant No.1. It was the case of the Plaintiff that he paid an amount of Rs.9,000/- to the Defendant No.1 from time to time till 22.8.1974 and, the remaining amount of Rs.12,098.23 was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was the further case of the Plaintiff that Defendant No.1admitted the suit transaction before the Tahasildar, Akkalkot before whom the proceedings for seeking permission for sale of the suit land were filed. It was the further case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant No.1 admitted that the suit land was sold to meet the domestic expenses and to satisfy the Government 3 and Semi Government Loans. Though the Plaintiff repeatedly requested the Defendant No.1 to get the permission to sell the suit land, the Defendant No.1 did not make any effort to get the same and, thereafter the Plaintiff issued notices and filed the said suit for specific performance. 3. On the other hand, it was the case of the Defendant No.1 that he agreed to sell the suit land to the Plaintiff and one Basavaraj Mallikarjunappa Hatture. The said Basavraj Hatture was to purchase the suit land on behalf of minor Mallikarjun Ravansindhappa Hatture and that an agreement had taken place between the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and the said Hatture on 2.6.1971 and the total consideration was fixed Rs.24,000/-. It was further the case of the Defendants that pursuant to the said agreement of sale dated 2.6.1971, the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to Defendant No.1 jointly and, since there was encumbrance at the time of agreement of sale of the Land Development Bank amounting to Rs.1901.77, the said amount was paid by the Plaintiff and, therefore, the total amount paid by the Plaintiff and the said Mallikarjun was to 4 the extent of Rs.11,901.77 ps. It was the further case of the Defendants that they had never committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale dated 2.6.1971. However, it is the Plaintiff who has not acted as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement of sale. 4. The said suit was tried by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur and by his judgment dated 6/8/1999 decreed the same. The trial Court held that the purported Agreement of Sale dated 2/6/1971 was not duly proved and that the said document appears to be doubtful. On the basis of evidence that was adduced, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the said oral Agreement dated 29/3/1974 was proved and, therefore, held that the Plaintiff was entitled to the specific performance of the said Agreement of Sale. The trial Court further held that the Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and it was the defendants who had not cared to execute the sale deed. The trial Court, therefore, held that the defendants have refused to perform their part of the contract. The trial Court also held that the Plaintiff was not 5 responsible for any delay caused as the Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but it was the defendants who had defaulted on the same. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.82 of 1999. The said Regular Civil Appeal came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solapur by his Judgment and order dated 7.7.1983. 6. Both the Courts below, on the basis of the evidence that was before them have recorded findings of fact as regards the oral agreement of which specific performance has been granted and also as regards the plaintiff's entitlement to the grant of said discretionary relief of specific performance. Both the Courts below have rejected the theory of the Defendants of the Agreement for Sale dated 2/6//1977. 7. In my view, the challenge raised in the above Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the 6 above Second Appeal, the Civil Application Nos.1342 of 2003 and 1133 of 2008 do not survive and are disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J]