-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.608 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.608 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.608 OF 2007 Gafoor Yakub Kazi & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Kamruddin Dagadu Kazi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Ajay A. Joshi for the Appellants CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JANUARY 30, 2008. : JANUARY 30, 2008. : JANUARY 30, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the Appellants. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The Appellants are the co-owners of the suit property. According to the case of the Appellants, the defendants by practising fraud obtained a registered sale deed from the first Appellant on 9th November 1995. A suit was filed by the Appellants-plaintiffs for setting aside the said sale deed. The suit was decreed by the trial court. In an Appeal preferred by the Respondents-defendants, the Appellate Court has interfered. The Appellate Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, the Appellant No.2 executed a registered consent deed dated 1st July 2000 confirming that the second Appellant (second plaintiff) was consenting to the sale deed dated 9th November 1995 executed by the first Appellant. 2. The submission of the learned Advocate for the Appellants is that the alleged consent deed dated 1st July 2000 itself records that it is without consideration. He submitted that mere execution of the consent deed by the second Appellant -2- will not amount to transfer and sale of right, title and interest of the second Appellant in the suit property in favour of the Respondents. He emphasised on the fact that the consent deed is without consideration. 3. I have considered the submissions. The consent deed dated 1st July 2000 has been allegedly executed by the second Appellant during the pendency of the suit. The second Appellant was all along aware that the said consent deed was set up as a defence by the Respondents. In spite of that no amendment was carried out by the Appellants to the plaint for challenging the consent deed. 4. The Appellate Court found that the registered consent deed has been executed by the second plaintiff. Perusal of the said consent deed shows that the second plaintiff has recorded her consent to the sale of the suit property by the first plaintiff. In view of what is stated in the consent deed which was duly proved, the Appellate court has set aside the decree passed by the trial court. In the said consent deed, one of the plaintiffs i.e. the second Appellant has confirmed the execution of the sale deed by the first Appellant. The said sale deed was itself the subject matter of the suit filed by the Appellants. 5. Considering these aspects, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. -3- JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE