1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 130 of 2008 (Mahadeo Shrawanji Chapke Vs. Kishore Govind Patokar & anr.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 13 th June, 2008 Heard Shri Shelat for the appellant, and Shri A.V. Bhide for the respondents. By this second appeal, the appellant challenges the two concurrent judgments passed by the trial and the appellate Courts dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/ plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by him in favour of the defendant no.1 on 22/8/1981 was not a valid document and was executed in view of the loan transaction between the parties by which the defendant no.1 had paid an amount of Rs. 1500/- to the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 denied the claim 2 of the plaintiff and pleaded that he had purchased the suit property from the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and an amount of Rs. 8,500/- was deposited by the defendant no.1 with the Land Development Bank towards the loan incurred by the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 further pleaded that balance amount of Rs. 1,500/- was paid by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff before the Sub Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the sale deed execution by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no.1 on 22/8/1981was not a nominal document, but reflects a genuine sale transaction. The Court further held that the plaintiff was not able to prove that the document dated 22/8/1981 was executed in view of the advance of loan of Rs. 1500/- by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff was consequently dismissed. The first appellate Court upheld the judgment passed by the trial Court. 3 The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP