: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.686 OF 2003. SECOND APPEAL NO.686 OF 2003. SECOND APPEAL NO.686 OF 2003. Baburao Vithoba Salunke & Ors. ..Appellants Versus Ananda Baburao Salunke & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.A.C.Damle for the appellants Mr.Tejas Deshumkh for the respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM: S.R.SATHE, J. CORAM: S.R.SATHE, J. CORAM: S.R.SATHE, J. DATE : 23rd June, 2005 DATE : 23rd June, 2005 DATE : 23rd June, 2005 P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant. 2. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below. Both the courts have held that the plaintiff was in fact not having right as alleged. There is nothing to indicate that the transaction was of mortgage. All that was alleged that is some payment of Rs.800/- was made before the Tahsildar and mutation entry was made accordingly. However, the documents on which the plaintiff relies, show that it was a mere agreement to sale. So no right was conferred on the plaintiff. The finding recorded by both the courts below are legal and correct. No substantial question of law is involved in the matter. Hence appeal is dismissed in limini. : 2 : (S.R.SATHE, J.)