1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No.258/06. Sau.Pramila Tulshiram Kadhao & anr. ..vs.. Arun Gomase and 2 ors. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 28th January, 2008. 1. Heard Mr.N.S.Talmale, Advocate for the appellants and Mr.Markandeywar, Advocate for the respondents. 2. The plaintiffs had instituted a suit for permanent injunction and possession of the suit property. It is alleged that the suit property belonged to one Vithoba, who died on 17/2/1995. He executed sale-deed in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit property. He had executed a sale deed on 27/1/1995. The plaintiffs seek to set aside this sale on the ground that Vithoba had lost his power of understanding and therefore the sale deed in favour of the defendants is vitiated. The 2 defendants resisted the claim. 3. The learned judge of the trial court rejected the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to field Gat No.76 and held that the prayer of the plaintiffs for setting aside the sale of field Gat No.76 cannot be granted. The appellate court also agreed with the findings of the trial court and being aggrieved by that the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the findings of the courts below are not correct because of the fact that in fact no consideration was ever paid to deceased Vithoba and when no consideration is at all paid, it cannot be said that any property passed in favour of the defendants. 5. After having gone through the pleadings of the plaintiffs, it is found that there is no whisper in the pleading that no consideration was paid to deceased Vithoba by defendants. It was contended by him that the defendants were students and could not have paid consideration at all. He also contended that defendant no.1 was residing with Vithoba and therefore it could be said that there was no question of Vithoba being paid any 3 consideration by defendant no.1. The learned judge of the first appellate court has given reason why this submission cannot be accepted. He found that it is not shown that one of the brothers was not in position to pay and therefore it could be said that he paid the consideration. Since there is no pleading that no consideration was paid, there is no question of looking into that finding at all. It is also not alleged in the pleading that the sale deed was brought about by any fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence. It was executed of free will by deceased Vithoba. Since there are no particulars and no pleadings, it cannot be said that the sale deed executed by Vithoba in favour of defendants is at all void. There are concurrent findings of the courts below that the consideration was paid and the sale was valid. I do not find that there is any substantial question of law involved in the appeal The appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. pzc