1 sa625-626 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.625 OF 2011 Shamu Antu Sathe (deceased through L.Rs.) ...Appellants vs. Pandu Rama Patil (deceased through L.Rs.) ...Respondents AND SECOND APPEAL NO.626 OF 2011 Shamu Antu Sathe (deceased through L.Rs.) ...Appellants vs. Yashwant Rama Patil ...Respondent Mr.Manoj Patil for the appellants None for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 23, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. As facts leading to filing of both the Appeals are more or less identical, a reference is made to the facts of the Second Appeal no.626 of 2011. 2 The appellants are the legal representatives of the defendant. The respondent filed a suit for redemption of mortgage. His case was that the deed of mortgage was executed on 25th May 1988 in favour of the original defendant. The suit was contested by the original defendant by contending that in fact 2 sa625-626 the transaction between the parties was of absolute sale for consideration of Rs.20,000/-,but by taking advantage of illiteracy of the original defendant, a document of mortgage was got executed. It was contended that the original plaintiff has purchased the suit property under section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1948) and the Tahsildar has forfeited the suit property. 3 The Trial Court decreed the suit. The Appellate Court confirmed the said decree. 4 The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that as by passing an order under section 84-C of the said Act of 1948, the suit property has been resumed, there is no question of passing the decree of mortgage. 5 I have considered the submission. The plea of the appellants was that by practicing a fraud, the execution of mortgage deed was obtained from the original defendant. The Courts below have considered the evidence of the witnesses examined by the appellants. The appellant no.2 admitted that he was not present at the time of transaction. The Courts below have also considered the evidence of the other witness Mr. Bapu Sathe examined by the appellants. In his evidence, he did not set out the manner in which the fraud was practiced. Therefore, the Courts below have discarded the case of the appellants that what was intended to be executed was a sale deed. As far as the order under section 84-C of the said Act 3 sa625-626 of 1948 is concerned, the Appellate Court noted that even the certified copy of the order was not produced and only a photo copy was produced. Moreover, the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent was recorded that the said order has been set aside. 6 No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 7 Civil Application nos.1496 and 1497 of 2011 do not survive and the same are disposed of. JUDGE