( 1 ) sa261.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5635 OF 2010 Anjunsingh s/o. Mohansingh Rawat & Anr. .. Appellants Versus Kondyabai w/o. Gyanobarao Khoraskar & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A.S. Rasal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 10.06.2011 P.C. :- 1. This Second Appeal is challenging the concurrent findings of fact that the appellants could not prove title to the suit property. The respondents are decree holders and they initiated execution of the decree for possession against appellant No.2, who was the sole judgment debtor. It was he who was in possession of the suit property. During the pendency of the execution, appellant No.1 came forward to oppose the execution on the ground that he had purchased the ( 2 ) sa261.10 suit property from respondent No.2-decree holder. He stated that respondent No.2 had appointed one Ganpat Kadam as her attorney authorizing him to sell away the suit property. He said that pursuant to such power, Ganpat had executed sale- deed in his favour. This case of appellant No.1 was examined in a properly tried objection petition and the execution/trial Court held that the appellants’ case was fraudulent and unbelievable. Even Appeal Court had on facts recorded similar finding. 2. Having perused the impugned judgment, I find no error of law. No substantive question of law arises in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 5635 of 2010 does not survive and stands disposed of as such. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/JUN11/sa261.10