Judgment 1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 22nd August, 2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Buldana in RCA No. 102 of 2008 which was dismissed. The said appeal had arisen from judgment and order dated 10-7-2008 in RCS No. 128 of 2005 delivered by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, JD, Buldana by which the suit was decreed for refund of earnest money of Rs. 1 lakh along with interest @ 8% per annum from 10-3-2005 till the decision of the suit and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decision in the suit till realization. 2. It appears that the suit relates to land Gat No. 24 situated at mouza Hanwatkhed, Tahsil and District Buldana admeasuring 1.77 HR bounded as under: On East : Land out of Survey No. 24; On West : Land of one Gulab; On North : Government Land; and On South : Government Road. Plaintiff Nalini Pandurang Raut had claimed that defendant Gayabai Rambhau Gadekar and her son Dattu had induced Nalini to purchase suit property described as above for price of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. Plaintiff, believing in the representation of defendant, entered into agreement for purchase of land on 23-2-2005. The agreement contained recital that if any dispute arises, the defendant and her heir will be liable for the consequences. Thus, defendant had accepted sum of Rs. 1 lakh on the date of agreement as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed by 25th March, 2005. Before sale deed could be executed as agreed between the parties, notice dated 10-3-2005 was sent by one Kausalyabai widow of Prakash Gadekar (daughter-in-law of Gayabai) whereby the plaintiff was informed about pendency of civil litigation between Gayabai and Kausalyabai in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff was shocked by the notice. She approached defendant Gayabai for rescission of agreement due to breach of conditions. However, Gayabai and her son refused to rescind the agreement. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to rescind the agreement and to pray for refund of the amount. In that behalf, legal notice to the defendant was issued on 22-3-2005 by RPAD. Defendant was called upon to refund earnest money within 15 days from the receipt of notice or in the alternative, obtain consent from Kausalyabai for sale transaction. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to rescind the agreement and to pray for refund of the amount. In that behalf, legal notice to the defendant was issued on 22-3-2005 by RPAD. Defendant was called upon to refund earnest money within 15 days from the receipt of notice or in the alternative, obtain consent from Kausalyabai for sale transaction. However, defendant refused to accept the said notice and failed to comply with the demand of plaintiff. Thus, suit was filed for refund of earnest money with interest thereon. 3. Suit was contested by defendant Gayabai by filing Written Statement (Exh. 24) in which the fact about description of suit property as well as notice issued by Kausalyabai on 10-3-2005 were not disputed. Thus, the trial Court in RCS No. 128 of 2005 was required to consider the maintainability of the suit as well as the fact as to whether plaintiff paid sum of Rs. 1 lakh to defendant as earnest money and whether she was entitled for refund of the said amount along with interest. The trial Court upon evidence led, answered the issues in favour of plaintiff and held that the plaintiff was entitled to rescind the contract and was entitled to get back from defendant Rs. 1 lakh which she had paid to the defendant. The trial Court considered judicial precedent in Videocon Properties Limited v. Dr. Bhalchandra, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 711 before it answered Issue No. 4 to the effect that plaintiff was entitled to refund of earnest money with interest as awarded. The trial Court decreed suit in favour of plaintiff, as aforesaid. 4. Unsuccessful defendant Gayabai had challenged validity and legality of the judgment of the trial Court before the Principal District Judge, Buldana by RCA No. 102 of 2008. Learned 1st Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and also took into account subsequent event that by sale deed dated 15th February, 2009 suit land which the plaintiff had agreed to purchase, was sold by the defendant during the pendency of appeal to Pushpa Madhav Bhalerao for a sum of Rs. 1,77,000/-. Learned 1st Appellate Court also found that Gayabai had executed a Will to bequeath Gat Nos. 24 and 25 to her son Dattatraya. 1,77,000/-. Learned 1st Appellate Court also found that Gayabai had executed a Will to bequeath Gat Nos. 24 and 25 to her son Dattatraya. It is under these circumstances which were brought to the notice of 1st appellate Judge that it was held that the plaintiff will not be able to seek relief of specific performance of contract. Thus, prayer for refund of earnest money which was decreed by the trial Court was appropriately confirmed in the appeal and learned 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by original defendant as without merit. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below erred in law to order refund of earnest money along with interest on the ground that the trial Court had not framed issues as to whether amount of earnest money could have been forfeited and whether plaintiff had herself withdrew from the agreement to sell and as to whether plaintiff could have filed suit for specific performance insisting upon execution of the sale deed. On this ground, learned Advocate for appellant wants to assail impugned judgment as illegal. According to him, learned 1st Appellate Court relied upon foreign material to confirm the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, in view of the facts and circumstances, submitted that it was Kausalyabai, daughter-in-law of defendant Gayabai who issued notice on 10-3-2005 to the plaintiff Nalini as well as to Gayabai. She had claimed share in the suit property Gat No. 24. After receiving the notice from Kausalyabai claiming share in the property, plaintiff issued notice dated 22-3-2005 to defendant Gayabai declaring her intention to rescind the contract and claimed refund of earnest money together with interest thereon. It is submitted that the first appellate Judge did not act on “foreign material” but subsequent events which had material bearing on facts of the case. 7. It is submitted that the first appellate Judge did not act on “foreign material” but subsequent events which had material bearing on facts of the case. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Judge were well-reasoned and correct according to law as family member of the intending vendor herself claimed share in the suit property which created a situation of rescission of the agreement as under such circumstances, clear and undisputed title in the suit property could not have been conveyed by Gayabai though in the agreement it was so promised particularly when time was made essence of contract and sale deed was intended to be executed by 25-3-2005. Thus, considering the nature of relief which was equitable for to insist upon specific performance of contract, plaintiff Nalini like any other reasonable and prudent person having received notice from the family member of defendant claiming share in the suit property, chose to insist upon refund of earnest money. In these facts and circumstances, as submitted by learned counsel for appellant, the amount of earnest money could not have been forfeited by Gayabai as even before execution of the sale deed as intended, title of Gayabai became clouded by her family member (daughter-in-law) who claimed share in the suit property. Be that as it may, subsequently when First Appeal was pending, suit property was sold for consideration of Rs. 1,77,000/- to one Pushpa Bhalerao by Gayabai. Thus, when Gayabai herself sold the suit property according to her choice, nothing really remained in the suit agreement for to insist upon specific performance of contract and the only remedy left open for plaintiff was mere demand for refund of earnest money. That being so, subsequent event including Will by Gayabai in favour of her son Dattu was rightly noted by learned 1st appellate Judge. For all these reasons, at the stage of second appeal when judgments rendered by the Courts below are as a result of concurrent findings of fact, I do not find any substantial question of law which can directly and substantially affect rights of the parties in the present case. The conclusions recorded by the 1st Appellate Court for confirmation of the decree were in consonance with evidence in the case and facts and circumstances brought on record. The conclusions recorded by the 1st Appellate Court for confirmation of the decree were in consonance with evidence in the case and facts and circumstances brought on record. That being so, in the absence of any substantial question of law, I do not find any reason to entertain and admit this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for appellant at this stage contended that amount of interest may be waived as appellant is ready and willing to refund sum of Rs. 1 lakh. This prayer is strongly objected by learned counsel for respondent. Rate of interest ordered by the trial Court appears reasonable. Hence, it does not require any interference. According to learned counsel for the parties, sum of Rs. 50,000/- is already deposited in the trial Court. Executing Court will take note of the same. In the result, for want of substantial question of law, appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.