1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.472 OF 2009 Gokulabai w/o Kamaji Bansode, Age: 82 years, Occ: Agri. & Household, R/o. Pimpalgaon Balapur, Tq. Purna, Dist.Parbhani. .. Appellant Versus 1. Saraswatibai w/o Chatrapati Ranveer, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agri.,& Household., R/o. Pimpalgaon Balapur, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani. 2. Shankarrao s/o Manikrao Bansode, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. As above. 3. Ramchandra s/o Govindrao Bansode, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. As above. 4. Sambhaji s/o Namahi Watode, Age: 93 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. As above. .. Respondents ... Mr. V.M. Maney, Advocate for appellant. ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : . Heard Counsel for the appellant. 2 2. The appellant is the original defendant No.2. Respondent No. 1 filed suit (R.C.S. No. 62/1997) for injunction. The suit came to be decreed. The appeal (R.C.A. No.71/2007) was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. 3. The case of the appellant was that she executed a nominal sale deed in favour of the plaintiff (Respondent No.1) which was not to be acted upon. She alleged that the plaintiff had executed an agreement dated 04-01-1989 to reconvey the suit land after the litigation between defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 1 was over. Thus, it was contended by the appellant that the title did not pass in favour of defendant No.1. 4. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court noted that the appellant failed to prove that the sale deed was nominal. It is pertinent to notice that throughout her evidence, the 3 appellant did not refer to the so called agreement dated 04-01-1989 regarding reconveyance of the land by respondent No. 1 (plaintiff). She did not narrate the settled terms regarding so called agreement. She had examined D.W. 2 Sambhaji i.e. defendant No. 2. He too did not support her case. Neither of them supported the averments regarding the execution of contemporaneous document dated 04-01-1989. 5. In view of this matter, the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below are unassailable in the exercise of the Second Appeal Jurisdiction. These are the findings of fact and in view of "Gurdev Kaur & Ors vs. Kaki, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1975", the instant appeal is not maintainable. Hence the same is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] sut/NOV09/sa472.09