1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 260 OF 2008 (Dwarkadas Shankarlal Baheti & Ors. vs. Sau. Damayanti Nandkishor Parate) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 12, 2009. Heard Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for the appellants – original defendants and Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff. In a way, the judgments and decrees are concurrent because the plaintiff partly succeeded before the trial Court and remaining relief he got from the appellate Court. The sale deed is for 4 H 84 R and according to the plaintiff it included the cattle shed. According to the appellants/ defendants cattle shed was not agreed to be sold and therefore, there is no question of delivering the cattle shed in the possession of the respondent. Shri Kaptan, the learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that in the sale deed what is described as Northern boundary is the remaining part of field of the appellants. It is to be noticed that the lower appellate Court has found in para 13 that 2 area sold by present appellants to respondent is not in dispute. Thus, when 4 H 84 R area is not in dispute, it covers cattle shed and, therefore, cattle shed is sold by present appellants to the respondent. In para 13, it is also recorded that 64 R land was found less in possession of present respondent and after measurement in April 2003, the possession of said land which included cattle shed was handed over. According to Shri Kaptan, learned counsel, possession of cattle shed and 64R of land was to be handed over. During arguments, he also offered to hand over another portion of 64R to present respondent. The respondent offered to construct cattle shed in the field in the custody of present appellants. The discussion above clearly shows that when area to be sold is not in dispute, the fact that cattle shed stands covered in it, cannot be disputed. The view taken by the appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. No substantial question of law arises in the Second Appeal. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.