1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.68 OF 2009 Damodar M Pingale ..Appellant versus Sau Sunita Manohar Pinagle ..Respondent Ms.Alpa Jhaveri i/b. Ms Teja Katdare for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2009. P.C: 1. The respondent herein filed a suit against the defendant for declaration that she is the owner of the land described in the plaint and for an injunction, and alternatively for possession. The said suit came to be filed in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Raigad, at Alibag. The said suit came to be decided by judgment and decree dated 11.12.1992 and that the suit came to be partly decreed and the learned Judge declared 2 the respondent as owner of the suit property. The present appellant was directed to deliver the possession of the suit property. Against this judgment and decree the original defendant i.e. the present appellant filed Civil Appeal No.9 of 1995 in the Court of District Judge, Raigad at Alibag. The said appeal came to be decided by the learned District Judge at Raigad, Alibag by judgment and decree dated 30.9.2008. The appeal came to be dismissed. Hence the present second appeal is filed. 2. Learned Advocate Ms. Jhaveri took me through the entire record and tried to point out the infirmities in the judgment delivered by the learned District Judge. According to her the learned District Judge did not consider the facts in the proper perspective and wrongly came to the conclusion that the said transaction was a sale and not a mortgage. According to her the appeal ought to have been allowed and that is how she had challenged the decree passed by the learned 3 District Judge-I. According to her appropriate inferences were not drawn on the basis of the record and that proper course should have been to dismiss the suit. 3. I have heard learned advocate. The learned District Judge has in paragraph 14 clearly observed that the language in transaction, namely the sale deed dated 30.4.1984 at Exhibit 33 by defendant in favour of the plaintiff was clear i.e. a document of sale and not a mortgage deed. If that is so, it was right on the part of the learned trial Judge to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiff was owner of the property in question. Once the nature of the document is treated as sale, there is no question of any other conclusion being drawn on record. 4. After having considered the entire record, I am inclined to observe that the learned Judges have considered the record in its proper perspective. The learned District Judge has rightly observed 4 and come to the conclusion as regards the nature of the transaction. Hence no interference is required. In as much as no substantial question of law is involved. The second appeal is required to be dismissed. Hence the order. ORDER Second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)