(1) SA. 565.2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2004 Bhanudas S/o Govind Bhakare through LRs. and others .. Appellants VERSUS Mehboob S/o Babanath Karimkhan .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3866 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2004 Bhanudas S/o Govind Bhakare through LRs. and others .. Applicants VERSUS Mehboob S/o Babanath Karimkhan .. Respondent Mr. M.G. Kolshe Patil, Advocate for the appellants- applicants Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1(A) to 1(H) Respondent nos. 1(I) to 1(K) deleted as per Court's order ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 29TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1] The Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the transaction between the parties was not a mortgage, as asserted (2) SA. 565.2004 by the appellants-plaintiffs, but it was an out- right sale. 2] Having gone through the judgments of the lower Courts, I found that the appreciation of the evidence and the question of law between the parties was decided by the Courts below giving cogent reasons and no interference is called for. There is practically no substantial question of law emerging from the Appeal. The appellant-plaintiff pleaded that he executed the sale deed in question way back in 1979 in favour of the respondent-defendant but he stated that the transaction was not an out-right sale but was a mortgage. He said that he had taken loan of Rs.1000/- from the defendant and as and by way of security for the loan, he had executed the document and had put the defendant in possession. After 19 years of the suit transaction, the appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit. 3] The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants tried to show certain circumstances which according to him would show that the transaction was a mortgage. He pointed out that the defendant did not obtain permission from the local authority for erecting the structure on the suit plot, the defendant despite of 19 years of continuous possession did not get the suit plot transferred in his name in the record of the local authority and (3) SA. 565.2004 the defendant in his cross-examination admitted that because the appellants-plaintiffs had agreed to repay the amount, he had not got his name mutated in the record of the local authority. 4] The Courts below however, as said above, held against the appellants-plaintiffs. The appellants' reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath Dadoba Karale V. Parisa Shantappa Upadhye (deceased by LRs.) reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3473 is misplaced. In the said judgment, the document was of mortgage by conditional sale and so, the plaintiff mortgagor succeeded in getting the mortgage redeemed. In this case, the document does not give any indication that it is a mortgage by conditional sale. The Appeal should therefore fail. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application no. 3866 of 2004, seeking injunction also stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp