IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.1103 OF APPEAL NO.1103 OF APPEAL NO.1103 OF 2005 2005 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.S.Patwardhan for the appellant. Mr. Surel Shah for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 9th July, 2007 : 9th July, 2007 : 9th July, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. In a suit for specific performance after considering the evidence and material placed on record, both the courts came to the conclusion that there was no such agreement to sale for consideration of Rs.17,000/- in respect of the suit property. Both the Courts, therefore, come to a further conclusion that there was no earned money paid to the deceased. In view of this, the further issues regarding the readiness, willingness and ( 2 ) forsible dispossession need no further discussion, as the foundation of the suit for specific performance itself, could not be proved by the appellant/ plaintiffs. 2. In such cases, the subsequent purchaser’s sale or purchase based on the document executed in favour of the such purchaser cannot be faulted with. The reasoning given by the courts below, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the facts and material on record. 3. Resultantly, the decree for specific performance and possession of the suit property as dismissed and confirmed by the Appellate Court, also need no interference. The Second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( 3 ) [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]