( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2008 Sadhu s/o Bhujanga Sarwade APPELLANT VERSUS Kundlik s/o Nivarati Sarwade RESPONDENT ..... Mr. R.B. Deshmukh, advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, advocate holding for Mr. Murar V. Deshpande, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3rd November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The plaintiff’s suit (R.C.S. No. 571/2004) for specific performance of an agreement of sale came to be dismissed though money decree to the extent of Rs. 12,000/- which was advanced by him to the defendant was granted in his favour. The first Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court. 3. According to the appellant (plaintiff), on 20th August, 2001, the defendant approached him and sought ( 2 ) Rs. 50,000/-. He gave the amount to the defendant being part payment of the consideration for agreement of sale in respect of land Gat No. 196 to the extent of 42 Ares. The case of the respondent (defendant) was that he did not agree to alienate the land nor had received amount of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money. He contended that he had borrowed Rs. 12,000/- from the plaintiff. He further alleged that his signature was obtained on a blank stamp paper on 16th August, 2001. 4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, both the Courts rendered a specific finding that the appellant (plaintiff) failed to prove the execution of an agreement of sale. The Courts below also held that the defendant signed a blank stamp paper when he was given loan of Rs. 12,000/- by the plaintiff. 5. It is pertinent to note that the parties are cousins. The Courts below found that the stamp paper was purchased on 13th August, 2001. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that for the first time, the defendant approached him on 20th August, 2001. The stamp paper was purchased by witness i.e. PW3 More. Both the ( 3 ) Courts below noticed that PW More could not have contemplated in advance that such stamp paper would be needed after one week. There were inconsistent versions as regards the payment, the terms of the agreement and the nature of transactions between the parties. In view of such inconsistency, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court held that the execution of agreement of sale was not at all proved but the transaction of loan was admitted by the defendant and as such, the decree for specific performance could not be granted. These are findings of fact. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa645-08