* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 443 OF 2009 Pravin Vijay Arekar ........Appellant v/s. Smt.Sunanda Vijay Patil .......Respondent ------- Mr.S.H.Joshi, adv.for appellant. Respondent and advocate absent. CORAM:- SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellant who is the original defendant challenges the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below resulting into money decree in favour of the respondent. 3. The respondent was the owner of motor vehicle being Sumo Jeep bearing Registration No.MH-01-1305. She claims to have sold the jeep to the appellant who is carrying on business of tours and travels in the name and style of `Expert Tours and Travels for the consideration of Rs.2 lacs. The appellant had ’ * 2 * paid part of the consideration i.e. Rs.1 lacs and gave a cheque for the balance amount of Rs.1 lacs. On 30th January, 2003 when the respondent presented the cheque for payment, the same was dishonoured and therefore the respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum thereon after serving due notice of demand on the appellant. 4. The defence of the appellant has been that respondent had not sold the vehicle to him but had engaged his services as an agent for selling the Sumo Jeep to a third party. Though, the price of the jeep was settled at Rs.2 lacs it required some repairs for which the appellant had expended Rs.20,000/- and after deducting the said amount of Rs.20,000/- from the price of the jeep, the respondent was liable to receive only Rs.1,80,000/-. The appellant claims to have handed over 2 cheques each in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent by way of security towards the transaction of sale. When the appellant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, the respondent had returned one of the cheques. She however failed to return the second cheque when the appellant paid the balance amount of Rs.80,000/- in 2 installments of Rs.40,000/- each. 5. Both the courts below on appreciation of the evidence before it, have accepted the case of the respondent and disbelieved the claim made by the appellant of having paid a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the respondent. The appellant examined a witness to establish payment of Rs.80,000/- in cash to the respondent. However, his evidence has been rejected by the courts below on * 3 * the ground that the same is not supported by foundation in the pleadings. It has not been the case of the appellant in his written statement that the amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid by him to the respondent in the presence of the witness examined by the appellant. There is no other evidence as regards the payment. In view of the concurrent findings on the question of payment allegedly made by the appellant to the respondent, the same cannot be interfered with, because it cannot be said that the inference arrived at by the courts below is not supported by the evidence or is perverse. 6. Mr.Joshi submits that the courts ought to have taken into consideration, the fact that the respondent had signed the transfer papers in respect of the vehicle in favour of a third party and no prudent person would sign the papers without having received the entire consideration. I find no substance in the submission, as the respondent was in possession of the cheque issued by the appellant. Mr.Joshi, next submits that the appellant was only an agent of the respondent and on signing the transfer papers, the agency came to an end. The courts below have rejected the claim of agency and accepted the case of the respondent that she had sold the vehicle to the appellant. Even if it is to be assumed for the sake of argument that it was agreed between the parties that the appellant would sell the vehicle to a third party, it cannot be said that the agreement of agency came to an end merely on execution of the transfer documents. The same would come to an end only after the respondent receives * 4 * the balance consideration. In the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the courts below is fair and reasonable. The same does not require any interference. There is no question of law arising in the matter for the consideration of this court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]