1 sa324.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 324 OF 2010 Maruti S/o Saluba Kakde and another .. APPELLANTS -VERSUS- Prayagbai W/o Thakuba Kakde and another ...RESPONDENTS WITH SECOND APPEAL No. 326 OF 2010 Maruti S/o Saluba Kakde and another .. APPELLANTS -VERSUS- Govinda S/o Ramji Bagale (Since deceased through his LRs) 1-A. Rahibai W/o Govinda Bagale and others. ...RESPONDENTS WITH SECOND APPEAL No. 327 OF 2010 Maruti S/o Saluba Kakde and another .. APPELLANTS -VERSUS- Prayagbai W/o Thakuba Kakde and another ...RESPONDENTS 2 sa324.10 WITH SECOND APPEAL No. 328 OF 2010 Kamalbai W/o Maruti Kakde .. APPELLANT -VERSUS- Govinda S/o Ramji Bagale (Since deceased through his LRs) 1-A. Rahibai W/o Govinda Bagale and others. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22nd December, 2010. PER COURT : All these four appeals involve common question of facts and laws, as such are dealt with together. 2. Two suits were filed; one by Maruti and another by Kamalbai for declaration and cancellation of sale deed with a relief of injunction on the ground that the sale deed in favour of present respondent is illegal. The sale deed is not executed by kamalbai. Same is without consideration. Other two suits were filed by the purchasers against the present appellants for injunction in respect of the same suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the present respondents and dismissed the suit filed 3 sa324.10 by the present appellants. The appellants preferred four separate appeals before the District Court. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeals, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present Second Appeals. 3. Shri. Palodkar, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The appreciation is perverse. Even the sale deed executed by Saluba in favour of Kamalbai on 10th June, 1992 was without consideration. Nor said Kamalbai, who was the daughter-in-law of Saluba had executed any sale deed in favour of the respondent. Actually, it is a case of impersonation. The learned Counsel contends that the said sale deed does not give any right, title or interest in favour of the present respondent. 4. with the assistance of the learned Counsel, I have gone through the judgment. The perusal of the judgment shows that both the 4 sa324.10 Courts on evaluation and appreciation of evidence have come to the conclusion that Kamalbai, wife of Maruti had executed the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent. The said finding is arrived at by appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary. Even Courts below have found, the purchasers to be in possession of the property. The appellants did not claim the relief of possession also. The relief of declaration without consequential relief of possession can not be also granted. 5. The conclusion drawn by both the Courts is possible conclusion. The Second Appeal can not be entertained only on the ground that some other conclusion may also be possible. 6. In the light of the above, the Second Appeal being sans substantial questions of law, are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE gas/sa324.10