1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 1065 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1790 OF 2006 Sakharam Mahadeo Waje & ors........Appellants versus Deodas Sahadeo Mahadik since deceased through his L.Rs. 1.1 Madhuri Devidas Mahadik & ors........ Respondents. Mr. Sachin Dhakephalkar adv. for the Appellants Mr. S.A. Sawant adv. for the respondents 1.1 & 1.2 Mr. Rajesh Parab for Respondents 3.3 to 3.6, 4.1 to 4.7. CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 13th MARCH, 2009. P.C.: 1. The suit land was purchased by 16 persons including the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 2 to 6 under a rgistered sale deed dated 8-6-1965. Though the property was purchased by 16 persons the sale deed was executed only in the name of defendant nos. 2 to 6. At a later point of time the defendant nos. 2 to 6 have sold the property in favour of the defendnt no.1. The plaintiffs instituted a suit and sought declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant nos. 2 to 6 in favour of defendant no.1 is null and void and also made a conseqential 2 prayer for injuntion. 2. The case of the plaintiff/appellant no.1 is that he has a right of pre-emption for purchase of suit land and thus the defendant nos. 2 to 6 could not have sold the land to defendant no.1 without first offering it for sale to the appellant no.1. It has been almost an admitted position before the courts below that prior to the execution of the sale of the suit property by defendant nos. 2 to 6 in favour of defendant no.1, an agreement of sale (titled as receipt) dated 1-4-1996 was executed in between the defendant no.1 on one hand and some of the co-owners on the other hand. The appellant no.1 and the appellant no.6 are the signataries to the agreement of sale dated 18-6-1996. Receipt of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- is not disputed. However, appellant no.1 has denied his signatures on the agreement of sale (receipt) dated 18-6-1996. The courts below have concluded that the Appellant no.1/plaintiff no.1 is one of the co-owners who has signed the agreement of sale (receipt) and the fact of receipt of Rs.50,000/- is undisputed. Both the courts have recorded a finding that the agreemet was entered into by defendant nos. 2 to 6 with the defendant no.1 with the knowledge and consent of the appellants. The said finding is legal and proper. The appellant is one of the signataries to the agreement of sale. Barring denying the signature on the agreement he has said nothing else touching the said doument. So his denial of the signature does not 3 advance the case of the plaintiff any further. It will not be out of place to state that the appeal was initially filed by all the plaintiffs. However appellants nos. 2,3 and 5 had sought deletion of their names after filing of the appeal. They had also moved for deletion of their names in the trial court and their names were deleted. Strangely enough they were again impleaded as appellants in this appeal. The concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that the agreement of sale executed by defendant nos.2 to 6 in favour of defendant no.1 was with the knowledge and consent of the present appellants is just and proper. I concur with the said finding as the same is based on reliable evidence on record. Once it is found that the agreement of sale was executed by the appellants along with other co-owners and with the defendant no.1, the appellant cannot claim any right of pre-emption. Appellants had already consented to the sale of property. He cannot assert the right of purchase in regard to the suit property. No case is made out by the appellant/plaintiff for claiming a right to purchase the property. 3. No question of law emerges for consideration much less a substantial. In the result, there being no merit in the appeal, the same stands dismissed summarily. . 4 3. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)