1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 719 OF 2009 Laxman Baburao Giri, ....Appellant. Versus Bansi s/o. Rangnath Karpe and others ....Respondents. Shri. H.P. Jadhav, Advocate for the appellant. Shri. V.D. Kadam, Advocate for the respondent 4 & 5 - Absent. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 26th February, 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. This is an appeal presented by the original defendant No. 4 in Regular Civil Suit No. 28/1993 raising exception to the judgment passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Keij on 24.12.1999 which has been confirmed by the Adhoc District Judge, Ambajogai in Regular Civil Appeal No. 15/2000 decided on 30/9/2008. 2. The instant appeal is restricted only so far as it relates to the share in property bearing Survey No. 98/D/7 as claimed by the original defendant No. 4 in R.C.S.No. 28/1993. It is not necessary to go in to the factual aspects in details. Suffice to say that the appellant has purchased the property to the extent of 24 R. out of Survey No. 98/D/7 from original defendant No. 1 Sampat by securing registered sale deed. The trial Court 2 has recorded a finding that his predecessor-in-title infact has already alienated the portion out of said survey number in favour of plaintiff No. 3 Venkati in view of the sale deed which is prior in time. The predecessor-in-title of the appellant, therefore, had no interest left in the property which is said to have been alienated in favour of the appellant after execution of the sale deed, Exh. 100, in favour of plaintiff No. 3 Venkati. The findings of facts recorded by the trial Court in respect of the entitlement of the predecessor-in-title or original defendant No. 4 Laxman i.e. the appellant herein, have been confirmed by the first appellate Court while dealing with the appeal. 3. I have perused the judgments recorded by both the Courts below and heard the arguments advanced by Shri. H.P. Jadhav, counsel appearing for the appellant. I am of the opinion that reasons recorded by the Courts below for rejecting the claim of the appellant/ original defendant No. 4 appears to be logical and reasonable and based on proper appreciation of the evidence placed on record. No substantial question arises for consideration in the appeal. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/sa719.09