1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.886 OF 2006. Gyanrao S/o PUndlikrao Jadhav ... Appellant. Versus Rukman S/o Vithalrao Wattamwar, and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate holding for Mr.M.B.Bharaswadkar, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.Y.Mahajan, advocate for the Respondent No.5. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 21.10.2010. PER COURT 1. The present appellant is the original plaintiff who had filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 30.3.1973, executed by Madhav in favour of Sopan is nominal, sham and 2 for recovery of possession with mesne profits. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred appeal before the District Court against the said judgment and decree. The appellate Court confirmed the finding and the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Sakolkar, learned counsel for the appellant instructed by Mr.M.B.Bharaswadkar, learned counsel submitted that the Courts have not taken into consideration the subsequent agreement Exh.164 entered between Madhav and Sopan on the next day of the execution of the sale deed. The same being a contemporaneous document, it ought to have been considered. Mr.Sakolkar, learned counsel further submitted that the document i.e. the sale-deed dated 30.3.1973, which was the subject matter of challenge should have been read in its entirety and which shows that it was the document of a mortgage and not a sale-deed with a right of repurchase. According to him, the Courts have 3 not properly appreciated the said document and the interpretation of the said document would raise substantial question of law. Mr.Sakolkar, learned counsel further submitted that the lower appellate Court has not framed the proper points for determination and has failed in its duty as required U/o 41 Rule 31 of the C.P.C. 3. Per contra, Mr.Mahajan, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the sale-deed dated 30.3.1973 was a transaction of sale with a right of repurchase. As the amount was not paid within five years, said Sopan became the owner and thereafter Sopan has sold the said property vide registered sale deed. The defendant is a subsequent purchaser. The said sale-deed was of the year 1993 and the suit has been filed in the year 1986. According to Mr.Mahajan, the nature of transaction dated 30.3.1973, has been held to be a transaction of sale with a condition of repurchase and the same is the finding of fact which has been concurrently arrived at by both the parties and as such no interference is called for. 4 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the respective parties, I have gone through the judgments. Both the Courts have elaborately discussed the oral evidence supporting the said document and have concurrently held that the said transaction in question was a transaction of sale with a right of repurchase. The said right was never exercised within the stipulated period. It is also held by both the Courts after elaborately discussing the evidence that the document Exh.164 which was styled as a contemporaneous document is not executed by Sopan. Instead of his signature, the thumb impression appears on the said document. The said document did not inspire confidence in both the Courts. All these findings are findings of facts. When the appellate Court has concurred with the findings of facts of the trial Court and has also elaborately discussed the evidence, non-framing of the total points for determination as has been framed by the trial Court would not vitiate the said judgment. 5 5. In light of the above, no case for interference in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa88606