(1) SA. 252.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2008 1] Subhas s/o Pandharinath Shinde, Age : 36 years, Occu.: agri., 2] Parmeshwar s/o Pandharinath Shinde, Age : 29 years, Occu.: Agri., 3] Sukhdeo s/o Pandharinath Shinde, Age : 24 years, Occu.: Agri., 4] Rukhminibai wd/o Pandharinath Shinde, Age : 54 years, Occu.: Household All r/o Sanjkheda, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad .. Appellants Versus Rajeshree w/o Sanjay Navgire, Age : 30 years, Occu.: Agri. And Household, R/o N-11, C-5, 32/2, Dwarkanagar, HUDCO, New Aurangabad .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3967 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2008 Subhas S/o Pandharinath Shinde and ors. .. Applicants Versus Rajeshree w/o Sanjay Navgire .. Respondent Mr. S.B. Parnere, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the appellants/applicants Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for the respondent (2) SA. 252.2008 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 24TH JULY, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The appellants are challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below which inter-alia held that the appellant nos. 1 to 3’s father and appellant no.4’s husband Pandharinath, had sold the suit property to the predecessor of the respondent. The original plaintiff Jyoti, filed suit against the appellants for perpetual injunction. She claimed that she was in possession of the suit land and the appellants were trying to obstruct her peaceful enjoyment. During the pendency of the suit, Jyoti sold the suit land to the respondent. The appellants took up a stand that Pandharinath, their predecessor in title, father of the appellants nos. 1 to 3 and the husband of the appellant no.4 had executed the sale deed in favour of Jyoti, as security for certain loan taken by Pandharinath from Jyoti. In other words, they stated that the sale deed was sham and it was at the most a case of mortgage. They said that Pandharinath did not hand over possession to Jyoti and so, Jyoti could not get perpetual injunction against them. They also contended that they had repaid the loan amount. . The Courts below dis-believed the appellants’ case and held that Jyoti and the present respondent (3) SA. 252.2008 had valid title to the suit land. The suit was decreed as well as the first appeal was dismissed. At the stage of second appeal, the appellants must show that there is a substantial law point in existence. 2] The only argument that was advanced in support of the appellants, is that there is no documentary evidence to prove Jyoti’s or present respondent’s cultivation, possession and control over the suit land. Assuming the respondent and her predecessor could not prove their physical control over the suit land, since they have amply proved the title, the argument does not give rise to a substantial question of law. The second appeal should therefore, fail. 3] The second appeal stands dismissed. 4] In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal no. 252 of 2008, Civil Application no. 3967 of 2008, does not survive and the same stands dismissed as infructuous. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp