( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5116 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.853 OF 2010 Sow. Shakuntala w/o Dinkar Marathe, Age: 52 years, Occ: Household., R/o. Plot No.23, New Bhagwannagar, Jalgaon and another. .. Applicants Versus Smt. Mathurabai Shivaji Gavande, Age: 71 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Dapora, Post Shirsoli, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. Ajit M. Gholap, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate holding for Mr. A.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 27.04.2010 P.C. :- This is an application for staying the execution, implementation and operation of the judgment and decree passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in Special Civil Suit No. 243 of 2007 decided on 12-03-2010, ( 2 ) thereby the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, has declared the sale deed dated 04-10-2004 in respect of Gat No.52 is cancelled. He also issued perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. 2. Briefly stated the case of the present respondents - plaintiffs' is that the suit property was their ancestral property. They were in need of money for redeeming of mortgage deeds which were executed in favour of Murlidhar Piraji Wani and Vasant Khandu Gavande and hence, they needed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the defendants - applicants agreed to give them loan with interest @ 5% and the sale deed was obtained just as a security for the loan. In stead of mortgage, the sale deed was got executed by fraud. They were in possession of the property. So, they sought declaration regarding the sale deed and also for injunction. 3. On the other hand, the applicants - defendants by Written Statement at Exhibit-16 stated that the amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- as mentioned in the sale deed was actually paid. They were put in possession of the property. Accordingly, ( 3 ) mutation entries were made. The V.F. 7/12 extracts show that they are in possession. As they are in possession of the suit property, the suit be dismissed. 4. Heard Mr. Ajit M. Gholap, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate holding for Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Advocates of both the sides have taken me to the entire record. The learned Advocate of the applicants relied upon the deeds of redemption produced at Exhibit-A and B and stated that the plaintiffs have stated in the deeds of redemption that amount of Rs.1,36,000/- was paid to Murlidhar Piraji Wani on 20-08-2003 and amount of Rs. 2,72,000/- was paid on 25-03-2004 to Vasant Khandu Gavande. These two documents Exhibit-A and B are registered documents. The execution of these documents is not in dispute on the part of respondent No.2. These documents clearly proved that the amount of almost Rs.4,00,000/- was raised. Just few days before the sale deed in favour of the applicants - defendants, the amount of Rs.2,72,000/- was paid to Vasant Khandu Gavande. So, case that only loan of Rs.2,00,000/- obtained does not appear to be true. ( 4 ) 5. The learned Advocate of the applicants pointed out to me the sale deed, copy of which is at Exhibit-C. It is dated 04-10-2004 and therein, it is stated that the amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- was actually paid and the land was given in possession. The land sold was 1 Hector 66 Ares plus 4 Are Potkharaba, which is irrigated land. It is a registered sale deed. At Exhibit-D, there is Mutation Entry No.3064 certified on 04-10-2004 and thereby as per this sale deed, mutation was sanctioned and the land was entered in the name of the applicants. The V.P. 7/12 extracts of the year 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 clearly indicate that the applicants were in possession of the property. Document at Exhibit-G shows that challenge to the mutation was rejected by the Naib Tahasildar and against the same, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon. The learned Advocate of the respondent No.2 has taken me to the reasons given in the judgment by the trial Court and I am not at all satisfied with the reasons given for discarding the case that the possession was not delivered to the applicants. Nobody would pay Rs.3,70,000/- without getting possession. Prima facie reasons given by the trial Court are not satisfactory to hold that the presumption ( 5 ) raised to the entries in the revenue record should be held rebutted. 6. In the circumstances, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause-B and is disposed of as such. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/APR10/ca-5116.10