1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 227/2010 (Amit Anil Ashtekar & others VERSUS Dr.Pratap Sadashiv Tarak) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Apurv De, counsel for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 5, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the legal heir of the the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of contract for purchase of agricultural land and for possession of the same. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 17th of July, 1992 and had paid a consideration of Rs.30,000/- towards earnest amount. The property was to be purchased @ Rs.16,000/- per acre. The sale-deed was to be executed on or before 15th of March, 1999 after accepting the remaining consideration of Rs.34,000/-. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had even issued notice to the defendant calling upon her to remain 2 present in the Office of Sub-Registrar on 17th of April, 1999 for execution of the sale-deed. However, the defendants refused to execute the sale-deed and the suit was instituted. The defendant filed her written statement and denied the case of the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the defendant that the suit land was an ancestral property of her husband and the agreement of sale was executed towards security for the amount of loan for Rs.10,000/- obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the defendant that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was settled as security amount in stead of Rs.10,000/-. It was pleaded by the defendant that the price of the land was Rs.24,000/- per acre at the relevant time and since the agreement of sale was executed as security for the loan, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving the ownership of the defendant over the suit property and had further succeeded in proving that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.64,000/- after obtaining an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards earnest amount. The Courts then held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of 3 the contract. The Courts held that the defendant had been unsuccessful in proving that the agreement of sale was executed as security for the loan transaction of Rs.10,000/-. The Courts concurrently held that the defendant had been unsuccessful in proving that the land was the ancestral property of her husband and her children are the coparceners in it. Both the Courts concurrently held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts and since they do not give rise to a substantial question of law, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE