1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2009 Sudam Yadaoravji Sukhdeve Vs. Umesh Wamanrao Padole Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Smt. P. P. Undirwade Adv for applicant/appellant. CORAM: A. B. CHAUDHARI J. Dated: 2 nd MAY, 2011. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the transaction of conveyance of title of the property of the plaintiff under the sale deed to the respondent-defendant was an out and out money lending transaction and the Courts below ought to have decreed her suit for cancellation of the sale deed having been obtained by undue influence and mis representation. She relied on the judgments reported in 1] Subhra Mukherjee And Another Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Others (2000)3 Supreme Court Cases 312 and 2] Mst. Sethani Vs. Bhana AIR 1993 Supreme Court 956. Counsel argued 2 that the burden of proof that transaction was genuine was on the respondent-defendant but the Courts below have applied the law exactly in the opposite direction and therefore there arises substantial question of law. I have gone through both the impugned judgments. I find that it was the appellant-plaintiff who filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that transaction was money lending transaction and was not to be acted upon. Document of the sale deed was duly registered with the Registrar and the appellant never objected to the same. Since the plaintiff-appellant himself filed a suit and claimed reliefs, the burden of proof obviously is on the appellant to prove that transaction was a sham and bogus transaction. It is wrong to say that in a suit filed by the plaintiff, defendant would share a burden. Hence decisions cited are not applicable. Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact upon appreciating evidence that the transaction is of sale and in that view of the matter, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. In the result, there is no merit in the Second Appeal. It is dismissed. JUDGE svk 3 4 5 6