1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.129 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.349 OF 2010 Shantilal H. Sancheti. ..Appellant. Devednra Prasad N.Shastri and ors. ..Respondents. Mrs. Neet Karnik for the Appellant. Mr.S.A.Sawant for the Respondents 1 and 2. Mr.Vinod Jadhav i/by V.D.Patil for Respondent No.3. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 11th March, 2010 PC : 1 This is a second appeal filed by the original plaintiff. The prayer of the plaintiff was that the defendants may be directed to give him half portion of the suit plot and for an injunction that till he obtains possession of the half portion there should be no construction allowed to be constructed on the suit plot. Admitted position of the case is that the present plaintiff and the defendant No.1 was allotted the suit plot by Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority. 2 Consequent to the allotment, the lease deed was to be executed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. The allotment letter is dated 16.7.1980. However, prior to the execution of the said lease deed, the plaintiff executed an affidavit dated 17.7.1982 stating therein that he has no interest in the plot. On the basis of the said affidavit, the plot was transferred by the authorityin favour of the defendants by executing a registered lease deed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. The said lease deed was executed on 8.3.1983. The present suit was thereafter filed by the plaintiff in November, 1983 and both the courts have dismissed the plaintiff s suit. A finding of fact is that affidavit was executed not for the purpose of obtaining a loan by defendant No.2 as contended for valuable consideration of Rs. 12000/-. It is contended that the affidavit is not a registered document. In fact the said affidavit is not a document of transfer at all. Even the earlier allotment letter was not a document of 3 title. Document of title was in fact registered lease deed dated 8.3.1983. There is no challenge in the suit to the validity of the said lease deed. In the absence of challenge of the said document in the suit, prayers as contained in the plaint and referred to hereinabove were not tenable at all. In this view of the matter, in my view, there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Second appeal is therefore, summarily rejected. C.A.NO.349 OF 2010 1 As the second appeal is summarily rejected. Civil application is also rejected. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.)