1 sa-655.11 Ash FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.655 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri Anilkumar Patil for the Appellants. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2011 P.C.: . Heard Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. The Appellants are the original Plaintiffs. Their case is that the deceased Ramchandra, who was the original owner, was addicted to liquor and taking undue advantage of behaviour of the deceased Ramchandra, the Respondents got a Sale Deed executed from him on 29th January, 1988. The suit is filed for declaration that the Sale Deed is bogus and not binding on them. Apart from the merits, the Trial Court found that for challenging the Sale Deed of the year 1988, the suit has been filed in the year 1997 and therefore, in view of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit was barred by limitation. 2 sa-655.11 Hence, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit both on the ground of bar of limitation and on merits. 2. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants, I find no error in the view taken by the Courts below. The Appellate Court in Paragraph 8 of the judgment has noted the admission of the Appellants in the evidence that they had knowledge about the execution of the Sale Deed since beginning and a mutation entry was made on the basis of the Sale Deed which was challenged by them. Thus, when the suit filed in the year 1997 for declaration of the Sale Deed of the year 1988 was dismissed on the ground of bar of limitation, there is no reason to interfere in the findings of the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in the Second Appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. (A.S.OKA, J)