trial Court, the defendant, by his conduct, has proved that he never intended to sell the suit property including the plaintiff. But, the lower Appellate Court having concurred with the said finding has however directed the defendant to pay the amount of Rs.85,000/-, which is the amount said to have been paid under the sale agreement. In my considered view, findings of the lower Appellate Court is in consistent with its own earlier findings that the sale agreement is not true. Any way, since the defendant has not come forward with any appeal challenging the decree of the lower Appellate Court for refund of the alleged advance amount, I do not wish to interfere with the same. But, so far as the prayer for specific performance is concerned, admittedly it is a discretionary relief to be granted by the Court. Here, in this case, both Courts have held that the sale agreement in question was never intended to be enforced and it was only a security for the loan obtained. At any rate, there is a doubt in the genuineness of the document. In view of the same, I am of the considered view that the Courts below were right in rejecting the prayer for specific performance. At any rate, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal. Thus, I do not find any merit at all in this second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed.
