1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 393 of 2008 Jagdish Pandurangji Reche & Ano Vs. Rameshkumar Kashyap & Ano. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri N. W. Sambre, Adv. for appellant. Shri V. M. Deshpande, Adv. for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 12 th December, 2008. Heard counsel for the appellants and the respondents. This appeal has been preferred by the original defendants against judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the appellate Court. Respondent/plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration and possession of the suit property. The respondent 2 plaintiff had contended that he has purchased the suit field from one Sikandarkha Anwarkha by registered sale deed dated 10.04.1978. Plaintiff/respondent is a resident of Madhya Pradesh. He had therefore engaged one Babulal Naik to look after his land. It is alleged that until 1990 Babulal was actually cultivating the land and was rendering accounts to the plaintiff. Since Babulal did not render accounts for 3 years the plaintiff came to village and found that Babulal had died. He therefore wanted to cultivate his own land and went to the field with agricultural implements. It is alleged that defendants obstructed the agricultural operations. They raised a plea that they had purchased the land from Sikandarkha, hence plaintiff instituted a suit. Defendants resisted the suit contending that they had purchased the suit property by registered sale deed on 14.07.1994 from Sikkandarkha for a valuable consideration. Their main contention was that they are the bonafide purchasers of the suit field for value without notice. They submit that neither plaintiff nor Babulal was ever in possession and 3 Sikandarkha was in possession who delivered them the possession. Trial Court found that the plaintiff had become owner by virtue of sale deed dated 10.04.1978 and therefore Sikandarkha could not pass any title in favour of the defendants. They negatived the plea of the defendant that they were bonafide purchasers. Suit was therefore decreed. The appeal preferred by the defendants before the District Judge came to be dismissed, hence the Second Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the finding of the Courts below that defendants were bonafide purchasers for value without notice were apparently wrong. He submits that defendants had looked into the Revenue Record and found that right from 1965 until the date of suit crop statements were in the name of Sikandarkha and therefore the Court should have relied on these documents holding that defendants were the bonafide purchasers. On the other hand Shri Deshpande learned counsel submits that the property has been purchased by the plaintiff by a registered sale deed and 4 therefore what was necessary for the defendants to have done, was to have a search in the office of the Sub Registrar. Shri Deshpande has invited my attention to the cross examination of the defendants where he admits that he did not take search of the Index Register with the Sub Registrar and does not have receipt to that effect. Obviously whenever a purchaser wants to purchase a property he is bound to take search for atleast 30 years in order to find out whether there is any other transaction with regard to the said property or not. Admittedly, defendants did not take care to have a search in the office of the Sub Registrar where documents are registered. This was the primary thing which was expected of the defendant before purchasing the property. They having not done so, finding of the Courts below that defendants were not bonafide purchasers cannot be assailed. Those are the finding of facts which cannot be disturbed since there is nothing on record to show that these findings are perverse. Since the property was already transferred to the plaintiff Sikandarkha was no more the owner of the property and he therefore could not validly transfer the title of the property. 5 That is also a finding of fact which cannot be interfered. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk