1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.780 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.780 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.780 OF 2007 Parshuram Gangaram Jitekar .. Appellant V/s. Rambhau shivram Phadake .. Respondent Mr.D.J.Sheju i/b.D.N.Gondhali for the Appellant. Mr.Rajesh More for Respondent CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : JULY 8TH, 2008. DATE : JULY 8TH, 2008. DATE : JULY 8TH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . There is a concurrent finding in favour of the Respondent herein as regards the legality of the sale deed dated 19th December, 1995, as also with regards to the injunction granted to Respondent/Plaintiff in respect of the property in question the i.e.survey No.131 Hissa No.2. 2. The Respondents herein i.e. the Original Plaintiff who had filed Special Civil Suit No.102 of 1996, praying for cancellation of the sale deed made by 2 the Defendant No.2 in favour of the Defendant No.1. In the said suit the Respondent / Plaintiff have further prayed for an injunction restraining the Defendants from disturbing his possession towards the property in question. 3. It is the case of the Defendant No.2 that the sale deed has been executed by him pursuant to the power of attorney executed by the Plaintiff in his favour. It was further his case that the sale deed has been executed after the Plaintiff had received an amount of Rs.73,000/-. The case of the plaintiff is that he had never executed the power of attorney in favour of the Defendant No.2. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recorded findings of facts as regards the genuineness of the Power of Attorney and therefore have held that the Defendant No.2 was not authorised to execute the sale deed on behalf of the Plaintiff on the basis of the said Power of Attorney. Both the Courts below have also held that the Defendant No.2 has failed to prove that the Plaintiff executed the agreement to sale on 13th November, 1995 for the consideration of Rs.95,600/- (Rs.Ninty Five thousand Only) and pursuance thereto the Plaintiff has accepted Rs.73,000/- from Defendant No.1 and that Rs.22,600/- 3 remained to be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant No.2. 4. In my view, the courts below have recorded findings of fact. The challenge raised in the Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. 5. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (R.M. SAVANT, J.)