SRJ sa-684-08.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.684 OF 2008 WITH C.A.S.NO.1790 OF 2008 Smt.Ranjana D. Thorat .. Appellant Vs. Shri Anandra G. Jadhav & Others .. Respondents. Mr. N.J.Patil for Appellant. Shri K.N.Joshi i/b. Shri P.P.Killedar for Respondent No.3 CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsels. 2] The Appellant is original Plaintiff who had filed suit (RCS No.260 of 2001) for redemption of mortgage and declaration that the registered sale deed executed between Plaintiff No.1 on one hand and Defendant Nos.3 and 4 on the other hand is not binding on her rights. 3] The Appellant s case before the Trial Court was that suit land bearing gat No.792/1 to the extent of 1/3rd share was owned by her husband by the name Damu Thorat. It was alleged that said Damu Thorat has mortgaged the suit land in favour of Defendant No.1 Shri Anandrao G. Jadhav. It was alleged that Defendant No.1 Shri Anandrao G. Jadhav had obtained a private document (Ex.52) dated 27th February 1991 from said Damu Thorat purporting to show SRJ sa-684-08.sxw 2 terms of mortgage transaction. It was further alleged that said Damu Thorat executed registered sale deed dated 25th May, 1991 in favour of Defendant No.2 Smt.Sonali B. Jadhav. It was further alleged that subsequently, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 duped the Plaintiff and falsely executed sale deed in favour of Defendant Nos.3 and 4. The Trial Court held that the private document dated 27th February, 1991 was not duly proved and could not be treated as part and parcel of the sale deed (Ex.65) which was executed by said Damu Thorat on 25th February, 1991 in favour of Defendant No.2 Sonali Jadhav. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. The First Appellate Court rendered concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal preferred by the present Appellant. 4] The learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that both the courts have committed error while holding that the private document (Ex.52) is unconnected with the sale deed (Ex.65). He submits that the transaction is not properly appreciated by both the Courts below and, therefore, the Second Appeal involves substantial question of law relating to consideration of the said document and interpretation thereof. 5] It is pertinent to note that there is no condition enumerated in the sale deed to re-convey the property in favour of Defendant No.2 Smt.Sonali Jadhav. It is well settled that in the absence of such condition in the sale deed itself, the transactions cannot be treated as mortgage in view of Section 58(c)of the SRJ sa-684-08.sxw 3 Transfer of Properties Act. There is no substance in the averment that Damu Thorat was illiterate and was unable to understand the import of the transaction. There are concurrent findings as regards the nature of the transaction. It is pertinent to note that said Damu Thorat never challenged the said transactions. The Second Appeal, in my view, is not maintainable. Hence, it is dismissed. 6] Civil Application is also disposed off. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J)