The courts below have concurrently granted a decree for return of the amount paid as advance only in a suit for specific performance. The courts below have found on evidence that it was the plaintiff who committed breach of the terms of the contract. The contention of the plaintiff that the delay was on account of a ceiling case pending in respect of the property did not favour with the courts below. The courts below also noticed that it was the defendant who first issued a notice rescinding the contract pursuant to which only the suit for specific performance was filed.
I do not find any question of law much less any substantial question of law in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed.
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS