1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.306 OF 2010. Abasaheb S/o Yadavrao Khedkar and another ... Appellants. Versus Annasaheb S/o Narsing Sangale and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.S.Londhe, advocate for the appellants. Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, advocate for the Respondent No. 2-Caveator. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 27.09.2010. PER COURT 1. This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of ownership, perpetual injunction and possession. 2 It is the case of the plaintiffs that the registered sale deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant No.1 was a nominal transaction. In fact, it was a security for the loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) obtained by the plaintiffs. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and it held that the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant No.1 was out and out sale. 2. Mr.Londhe, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that while interpreting the said document, the conduct of the parties is relevant. It supports the theory of the plaintiffs that there was oral agreement that the mutation should not be carried out and after the amount is returned with interest, the defendant No.1 would execute an instrument in favour of the plaintiffs. According to Mr.Londhe, learned counsel, the revenue record affirms this fact. He further submitted that for the first time, when the plaintiffs went to return the money back, it is only at that time, 3 the defendant No.1 got his name mutated in the revenue record. This fortifies the case of the plaintiffs. It also ought to have been considered that the Collector has set aside the said mutation entry and the Revision is pending with the superior authority. This aspect has also not been considered by the Courts below. According to him, even the evidence of P.W.2 has not been properly appreciated. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. The instrument of sale executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant No.l in the year 1998 is a registered instrument. There is no whisper about any oral agreement or the transaction being in the nature of security. To mutate the name of a purchaser on the basis of registered instrument is the duty of the revenue authorities as per Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The fact about mutation may not be totally relevant inasmuch as when the registered instrument does not speak about transaction of 4 security nor there is any contemporaneous document. In such circumstances, high degree of evidence would be required by the plaintiffs to prove the transaction otherwise than what is recorded. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence have come to the conclusion that the possession was parted with and also that the transaction was of out and out sale. The view taken by the Courts below is a plausible view. In such circumstances, no substantial question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa30610