: 1 : 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 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.367 OF 2008 Mrs.Monica Amarnath Madurai ..Appellant. Vs. Mr.Amarnath Madurai & Anr. ..Respondents. Ms.Kokila Kalra with Mr.Abhijit Sarwate for the Appellant. Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : The impugned order warrants no interference so far as Respondent No.2 is concerned. 2. Respondent No.2 is the Appellant’s husband. The Appellant has challenged the sale of a property viz. a plot admeasuring about 4389 sq. ft. by Respondent No.1. There is nothing on record which indicates that there was any collusion between Respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is only a vague allegation that the Defendants are family friends. There is not even an averment as to the nature of the circumstances of their friendship. The Appellant does not state that she knows or knew Defendant No.2. She does not state how and when : 2 : Defendant Nos.1 and 2 became friends. 3. On the other hand, it appears that Respondent No.2 purchased the property pursuant to an advertisement issued on 6.4.2007 and the transaction was through a broker. Respondent No.2 obtained the title certificate before completing the transaction. Thus, even assuming that the property was purchased from the funds of the Appellant, there is no warrant for passing any orders against Respondent No.2, who appears to be a bona-fide purchaser for value without notice. 4. Admittedly, the property stands in the name of Respondent No.1. There is no other way in which Respondent No.2 could have been aware of the Appellant’s claim. 5. In the circumstances, the Appeal from order is dismissed.