-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2008 Shri Baban Malhari Khaire .. Appellant. V/s. 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Nashik & Ors. ..Respondents. ----- Mr. R.M.Haridas i/by P.N. Joshi for the Appellant. Mr. Surel S. Shah for the Respondent No.1. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The appellant is the original plaintiff. His suit for declaration that he has become owner of half of the suit property came to be dismissed by the trial court. The appellate court in appeal confirmed this order and therefore, the present appeal. 2. The appellant alongwith the respondent no.5 by the agreement dated 11.09.1978 purchased the suit property of respondent no.2 in a liquidation proceeding. The State Government later on set aside the above sale deed on the ground that the liquidator had no power to sell the suit land. The respondent no.5 challenged the -: 2 :- order passed by the State Government by filing a writ petition. However, his writ petition came to be dismissed and the State Government’s order was confirmed. Then the respondent no. 5 filed SLP in the apex court. However, the same was also dismissed. Thus in effect the order passed by the State Government, quashing and setting aside the agreement dated 11.09.1978 has been upheld by the apex court. The appellant plaintiff thereafter, filed the present suit for declaration. Both the courts below, in my view, rightly dismissed the suit in asmuch as the appellant-plaintiff cannot claim any right to the suit property in pursuance of the agreement dated 11.9.1978, which is already set aside by the government. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. The appeal is dismissed. (R.V.MORE,J.)