1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2007 Dattatraya Kondaji Kale .. Appellant Versus 1. Pandurang Rangnath Dange (Died through his L.R.'s) and others .. Respondents Shri R. N. Dhorde, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri R. R. Karpse, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Shri A. M. Gholap, Advocate for Respondent No. 7 and 7A. Shri M. N. Navandar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 8. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : . The appellant is the original defendant No. 5. He assails the judgment of the Courts below, wherein the suit filed by the original plaintiff is decreed and agreement of sale in favour of present defendant is declared to be obtained by fraud and without legal necessity. 2 2. Shri Dhorde, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the plaintiffs have not been in a position to prove fraud nor they have been in a position to prove that the said agreement was not for legal necessity. The ingredients of fraud are not detailed in the pleading nor in the evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Courts below have committed an error in relying on the case of plaintiff. The evidence led by the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove his case about the agreement in favour of the present appellant being induced by fraud. He also contends that in any case the appellant is entitled for protection of his possession U/Sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Properties Act. 3. Apart from the contentions of plaintiff that the agreement executed in favour of the present appellant was induced by fraud and was not for legal necessity still it cannot be disputed that the plaintiffs are not legal heirs of the deceased defendant No. 1. The title is passed on them and unless the defendant No. 5 proves the ingredients of Section 53-A i. e. readiness and willingness, the defendant cannot protect the possession. There is no pleading to that effect, nor there is any proof that the defendant No. 5 was and is ready and willing to perform his part 3 of the contract under the said agreement of sale executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 5. As such, on this count also the defendant No. 5 cannot protect his possession. 4. In the light of above, no substantial question of law arise. As such, the second appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/August 10