( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1226 OF 2004 Changdeo Shivaji Domale and ors. .. Appellants Versus Balbhim Namdeo Bhujbal and anr. .. Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 1363 OF 2004 Shivaji Muktaji Domale and ors. .. Appellants Versus Balbhim Namdeo Bhujbal and ors. .. Respondents Shri V.A. Jadhav h/f. Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 08.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. These two appeals relate to same subject matter of dispute between the parties. The present appellants are heirs of deceased Muktaji, who had executed a sale- deed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 21.11.1977 ( 2 ) for consideration of Rs.15,000/-. In the sale-deed it is mentioned that block No.56 admeasuring 1 H 60 R land was sold, but in-fact as per respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Muktaji wanted to sell portion of land admeasuring 1 Hectare 60 R out of block No.55, but by mistake wrong block number and abuttals were written. Present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Regular Civil Suit No.350 of 1980 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrigonda for rectification of the sale-deed. It is averred by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that it was a mutual mistake. In-fact, block No.56 which is mentioned in the sale-deed was not owned by deceased Muktaji, the predecessor in title of the appellants and respondent No.3, and he owned block No.55 which was adjacent to their land block No.54. Said Regular Civil Suit No.350 of 1980 came to be allowed on 30.03.1993. As against the same present appellants filed Regular Civil Appeal No.148 of 1993, which came to be dismissed by the IV Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar on 19.12.2001 and therefore Second Appeal No. 1363 of 2004 is filed by the appellants who were original defendant Nos. 2 to 5. ( 3 ) 2. At about same time appellants filed Regular Civil Suit No.96 of 1980 for perpetual injunction against respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrigonda. The said suit came to be dismissed by order dated 30.03.1993. As against the same Regular Civil Appeal No.156 of 1993 came to be filed and same was decided by the Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar on 19.12.2001, thereby the dismissal of the suit for injunction was confirmed. As against the same Second Appeal No.1226 of 2004 is filed. 3. The Trial Court so also the First Appellate Court held that there was mutual mistake in executing the sale-deed and instead of block No.55, block No.56 was mentioned and abuttals were also wrongly mentioned. It is also held that present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are Balbhim Bhujbal and Vishnu Bhujbal, they are in actual possession of the land which was intended to be sold i.e. block No.55 to the extent of 1 H 60 R on Eastern side. Common judgments were written by the Trial Court, and the First Appellate Court. The Trial ( 4 ) Court framed issues and relevant issues are issue Nos. 1,2 & 3 and they are answered in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 4. Heard Adv. Shri V.A. Jadhav h/f. Adv. Shri V.D. Hon for the appellants and Adv. Shri S.K. Shinde h/f. Adv. Shri V.B. Mhase for respondent No.1 in Second Appeal No.1226 of 2004. 5. In para 16 of the judgment the Trial Court observed that there was no written agreement of sale. The mistake is obvious because Muktaji the precessor in title of the appellants was owner of block No.55 which was in all 4 H 44 R land. He could not have sold block No.56 which was not owned by him. There is no dispute that the sale-deed was executed by deceased Muktaji Domale, the predecessor in title of the appellants and he received sale consideration. It is not case of any one that area of the land mentioned in the sale-deed was mistaken. So, in the circumstances only conclusion is that perhaps Muktaji who is since deceased, and present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 might have committed mutual ( 5 ) mistake in mentioning wrong Gat number in the sale-deed and might have also mentioned wrong boundaries. There is no reason to believe that Muktaji had any intention of committing fraud on respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Both Courts have concurrently held that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of land Block No.55 to the extent of 1 Hectare 60 R on Eastern side. It is also to be noted that Gat No.54 which is belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is on the Eastern side of block No.55 and obviously intention could be to purchase land abutting their land Block No.54 on Eastern side. There is no reason to hold that there was any other intention, unless we come to the conclusion that fraud was intentionally practiced by deceased Muktaji, who accepted consideration amount and executed the sale- deed. In the facts and circumstances of the case in my opinion the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are reasonable and proper. Both the Courts have concurrently held that portion intended to be sold was actually given in possession of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. So, in this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises. The findings of ( 6 ) facts cannot be said to be perverse. In this view of the matter, these Second Appeals deserve to be dismissed. Hence, the Second Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUL09/sa1226.04