1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2005 (Baburao Zingruji Chaudhari .v. Maroti Dewaji Gautre) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P.A. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : C.L. PANGARKAR, J. 21ST JANUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The respondent/plaintiff had instituted a suit for possession of the suit property. The plaintiff/ respondent alleged that the defendant had executed the sale deed but he was allowed to retain possession for some reason. Subsequently, he filed suit for possession of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed said to have been executed by the appellant/defendant. The defendant had raised a plea in the Written Statement that he is addicted to drinking liquor and on the date the sale deed was executed, he was required by plaintiff to drink liquor and he was then taken to Sub Registrar's office where some documents were got executed. This is the defence raised by the appellant/defendant in the 2 written statement. The Courts below have concurrently found that the contention of the defendant that the document was got executed from him under influence of liquor, is not supported by the evidence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended before me that in the instant case, there is a gross inadequate consideration shown in the sale deed, which itself suggests that it is not a sale deed. There is no force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The defendant has not raised a plea that he never intended to execute the sale deed and that the nature of the document is something else. It is not even pleaded by him that the said document was executed by him as collateral security. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prasad and others .v. V.Govindaswami Mudaliar and others (reported in AIR 1982 SC 84). In the said decision, it has been held that inadequate consideration in sale deed may be one of the grounds to determine the real nature of the transaction. In the instant case, the defendant does not come out with a case about real nature of transaction but he comes out with a case that the document was got 3 executed while he was under influence of liquor. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant has no bearing on the case or controversy at hand. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below that the document is a sale deed and it is not shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below were perverse and not borne out by the evidence tendered before it. In view of this, I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in the matter. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. The decree for possession be not executed for the period of six weeks from today. JUDGE *rrg.