1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.357/ 2010[Shanawaz Khan Ismail Khan ..vs.. Bachchansing Pishorsingh Sial] AND SECOND APPEAL NO.358/2010 [Shanawaz Khan Ismail Khan ..vs.. Bachchansing Pisorsingh Sial] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 23/8/2010 Heard Shri Salim Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant. Since common questions of facts arise for consideration in these two appeals, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. The appellant is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.1049/2005. He had filed a suit against one Bachchansingh seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. It was the case of the appellant/ plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.1049/2005 that Bachchansingh was the owner of the suit property and he had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Hiraman Shingne for selling the suit property to third parties. The plaintiff/ appellant pleaded in R.C.S. No.1049/2005 that he had entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the suit property for a consideration @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, through Hiraman. According to the appellant an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to Hiraman. The appellant pleaded that Bachchansingh was not ready to execute the sale- deed in favour of the appellant and was obstructing the possession of the appellant through police authorities. Yet another suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.276/2006 was filed 2 by Bachchansingh against the present appellant. Bachchansing pleaded that the appellant was trying to obstruct the possession of Bachchansing over the suit property and therefore, he be permanently restrained from disturbing the possession. Both the suits were tried together and by a common judgment the trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant and decreed the suit of Bachchansingh. Two separate appeals were carried by the appellant against the common judgment passed by the trial court. The first appeals filed by the appellant were however, dismissed. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on proper appreciation of material evidence on record. Both the courts have concurrently held that the alleged power of attorney executed, by Bachachansingh in favour of Hiraman was a forged document and the plaintiff could not have secured any right to purchase the property from Hiraman in pursuance of the so-called power of attorney. Both the courts held that the appellant was trying to disturb the possession of Bachachansing over the suit property. Since the findings recorded by both the courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.