... 1 ... IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.1549 OF 2005 ........................................................... OFFICE NOTES, OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF CORAM, APPEARANCES, COURT’S COURT’S OR JUDGES ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ORDERS AND REGISTRAR’S ORDERS ........................................................... Mr Vijay Mane for the Appellant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. : A. S. OKA, J. : A. S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : MAY 03, 2006. : MAY 03, 2006. : MAY 03, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Shri Mane appearing for the Appellant. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff. After having heard Shri Mane I find that no substantial question of law arises. The courts below have held that in cross-examination of the Appellant recorded in Regular Civil Suit No.194 of 1990 he has admitted the fact that in Regular Darkhast No.121 of 1987 the Executive Court directed him to execute a Deed of Conveyance. The Appellate Court has also observed that the said order passed in execution proceeding was not challenged by the Appellant. The said Darkhast was filed for executing the Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.137 of 1982 against the Appellant’s father. The courts have also held that the Appellant has failed to establish that the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.137 of 1982 was nullity. The Courts below held that the ... 2 ... Appellant has no right, title or interest in respect of the suit property. In view of the concurrent findings, no substantial question of law arises. There is no merit in the Appeal. Second Appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE