1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2009 Laxman s/o Tatya Ghodke ... Appellant Versus Shrirang s/o Kisanrao Jagtap ... Respondents ... Shri.S.G. Chapalgaonkar, counsel for appellants ... CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE: 12th November, 2009 PER COURT 1. Heard counsel. 2. The appellants are original plaintiffs. They filed suit for possession of agricultural land bearing Gut No. 22, which is allegedly part of Survey No.6, to the extent of half share. Their suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 472 of 2000) came to be dismissed. It was the case of appellants that they were in need of money. They borrowed Rs. 17,000/- from the defendant No.1 against execution of a registered 2 sale deed in respect of the suit land by way of security. They alleged that on repayment of the amount alongwith interest @ 2% per month, the sale deed was to be cancelled. The defendant No.1 got the sale deed executed in name of his son Purushottam i. e. defendant No.2 and gave the loan amount. Though the amount was repaid, yet the defendants No.1 and 2 did not reconvey the suit land. They did not restore possession of the suit land. Hence, they filed the suit. They relied on certain chits purportedly executed by defendant No.1. The learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the sale deed was outcome of loan transaction and that it was only by way of security for repayment of the loan. The learned Civil Judge further held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title. The appellate Court also confirmed the said findings by dismissing the appeal (R.C.A.No.79 of 2004). 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for appellants and on going through both the Judgments, it is amply clear that the findings are rendered on basis of material placed before the trial Court. It was contended by the appellants that the defendant No.1 and his family members could not have purchased the suit land because they reside at a distant place. It appears that certain chits relied upon by them were not duly proved. In the trial Court no attempt 3 was made to refer the chits to the handwriting expert. The mutation entry was recorded in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2. The appellants attempted to show that they had agreed to pay exorbitant interest. However, the evidence on record was insufficient to corroborate such plea. Considering the concurrent findings of the facts and in view of “Gurdev Kaur and others V. Kaki and others” (A.I.R. 2006 Supreme Court 1975), this second appeal is not maintainable. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. ) srm/sa281.09 4