1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 312/2009 Punjarao Sadabarao Maske, 54 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o-Wat Post Warla, Tah. & District Washim. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Sau.Gumphabai Sudam Wathore, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Money Lending Business, r/o Zodga, Post Warla, Tq. & Dist. Washim. 2. Subhash Ramsingh Chavan, Aged 26 years, Occu. Agriculturist, R/o Wai, Post Warala, Tah. & District Washim. RESPONDENTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.B. Badhiye, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 7, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land and defendant no.1 Gumphabai was doing money lending business. It was the case of the plaintiff that since he was in dire need of money in the year 2003, he took a hand loan from the defendant no.1 and executed a sale-deed of 4 Acres of land towards the security for the loan. The plaintiff pleaded that he asked for the reconveyance of the suit 2 land after the repayment of the loan but, the defendant no.1 had sold the suit land to the defendant no.2. According to the plaintiff, the sale-deeds dated 17.11.2003 and 27.02.2004 were null & void and ineffective. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the defendant no.1 had purchased 4 Acres of land from the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.42,000/-. The defendant no.1 then pleaded that there was no money lending transaction and the plaintiff, who was a rich person, had sold some of his land as some portion of his land was acquired by the Government under the Ceiling Act. The defendant no.1 stated that she had repurchased the land from Gyanuji Ballal and sold the field to defendant no.2 for a consideration of Rs.52,000/-. The defendant no.2 claimed to be in possession of the suit property. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that he had executed a sale-deed of the suit land on 17.11.2003 in favour of defendant no.1 by way of security for the loan of Rs.25,000/- and the same was a money lending transaction. Both the Courts held that the plaintiff further failed to prove that he was in lawful possession of the suit property on the date of the institution of the suit. 3 The Courts, on the other hand, held that the defendant no.2 was in possession of the suit property in pursuance of the sale-deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 on 27.02.2004. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE