1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2003 1. Kapoorchand Lalchand Patni and others .. .. .. Appellants Versus 1. ShaikhHaroon Shaikh Daud and others .. .. .. Respondents Shri S. M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM : P. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Kulkarni advocate for the appellants. After going through the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, in my considered view, the aspect of limitation is properly dealt by the appellate Court, and considered it from all angles. Therefore, the decree for specific performance was rightly refused. However, even though the suit was time barred, the learned advocate Shri Kulkarni states that 2 findings on point No. 2 and 4 recorded by the first appellate Court would come in way permanently and to that extent the appeal may be admitted. However, while answering point No. 1 the appellate Court has held that, plaintiff/appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff was not in possession of the property since 1989 and therefore he is not entitled to relief under Section 53 (A) of Transfer of Property Act. Shri S. N. Kulkarni also pointed out to me that Trial Court has decided issue No. 1, 2, 8 and 9 in his favour, but it is held that plaintiff/appellant is not in possession of the property. Issue No. 12 is regarding whether plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract and it is answered in negative. So there are concurrent findings of fact, so far as issue No. 1, 2 and 4 are concerned framed by the Trial Court. In this view of the matter this appeal cannot be admitted. The appeal is dismissed at admission stage. [ P. R. BORKAR, ] JUDGE bsb/June09/SA 210.05