1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 428 OF 2001 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 545 OF 2001 BALGONDA ANNA PATIL Age: 75 yrs, Occ. Agri. R/o. Khatav, Tal. Tasgaon, Dist. Sangli. ... Appellant (Defendant) Vs. 1. Kashinath Dhondi Patil, S.A. Stand dismissed Deceased by and through his legal as against Respondent representatives: Nos. 1(A) & 1(E) as per Court’s order A. Smt. Dhondubai Kashinath Patil dt.28.8.08. Age 61 yrs,Occ. Household, B. Shri Pandurang Kashinath Patil Age: 61 yrs. Occ: Household. C. Sou. Parvati Shankar Patil Ae 39 yrs, Occ: Household D. Smt. Mangal Ashok Chaugule Age: 37 yrs, Occ: Household. E. Sou.Lata Ashok Patil Age 35 yrs, Occ: Household. All R/o. Solkud, Tal. Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur. 2. Sanjay Vishwanath Patil, Age 39 yrs, Occ: Agri. Respondents (Plaintiffs) 2 Mr. P.R.Arjunwadkar,Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Archana Kololgi i/b. Shri Ashok J.Chougule, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 1B to 1D and 2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 14th September, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The respondents before this Court are the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.81 of 1981. According to them, the suit land was purchased by the original plaintiffs under a registered sale deed and they are in possession of the same as owners. The defendant/appellant took a plea that the plaintiff No.1 and his father were servants of the defendant and were men of his confidence. The defendant had entered into an agreement to purchase the suit land from the original owner Dattu. He also paid the consideration amount however, the sale deed was got executed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant was always the owner and purchaser of the property. The sale deed was a benami transaction and did not give any title to the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit and accepted the claim of the defendant. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No.600 of 1995. The appeal was allowed and the plea of benami transaction 3 taken up by the defendant was rejected. On the basis of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the suit was decreed. Therefore, the defendant preferred the present appeal. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Memo of Appeal, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any question of law involved in the matter. Both the Courts below appreciated the evidence independently. The first appellate court,after appreciating the evidence, came to conclusion that it was not a benami transaction. The plaintiffs are not owners on the basis of the sale in their favour. 4. It is now well settled tha the Second Appeal cannot be admitted unless a substantial question of law is raised. In the present case, the two Courts below gave conflicting findings but they are based on facts. There is nothing on record to show that the findings of the first Appellate Court are per se wrong or perverse. 5. Therefore, I find no substance in the present Appeal. The Appeal stands dismissed. 4 6. As the appeal itself is disposed of, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)