(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 794 OF 2005 Shri Vithoba Onkar Mahale, Since deceased through his legal heirs : 1. Gopabai Vithoba Mahale, Age : 70 years, Occupation : Household. 2. Shri Jagan Vithoba Mahale, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 3. Shri Laxman Vithoba Mahale, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 4. Shri Bhagwat Vithoba Mahale, Age : 47 years. 5. Sau. Chindhabai Dinkar Pawar, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Household. All R/o. Hartale, .. Appellants Taluka : Edlabad, (Original Dist. Jalgaon. plaintiffs) versus (2) 1. Namdev Govinda Mahale, Died per L.R. : 1A. Gokul Namdev Mahale, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Hartale, Taluka : Edlabad, Dist. : Jalgaon. 2. Shri Shamrao Vithoba Mahale, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, .. Respondents R/o. Hartale, (Original Taluka : Edlabad, defendants) District : Jalgaon. ....................... Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate, for the appellant. Respondent Nos.1A and 2 served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 22ND MARCH 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. None for the respondents though duly served. (3) 2. The dismissal of suit, seeking specific performance, made the plaintiff to prosecute the same before the first appellate court, being Regular Civil Appeal No. 45/1997. The dismissal thereof is questioned in the Second Appeal. 3. Mr. G.V. Wani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, has canvassed, since the nature of transaction translates into a power of attorney by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2, based on which an agreement of sale was entered in favour of plaintiff, would formulate a substantial question of law. 4. Both the courts, on the question of fact, have negated the contention of the plaintiff about the authority of the defendant no.2 to enter into agreement of sale in respect of immoveable property owned by the defendant no.1. The learned Judge of the first instance has elaborately made observations in paragraph 12 of the judgment, and not controverted by the first appellate court. In do not see any perversity in such observation of the court. There was naked interpolation to the last line in the document, which even witnesses could not reasonably explain. The observation does not warrant any interference. (4) 5. I find no merit in the appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa794