1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 624 OF 2009 1. Sevantabai W/o Nivrutti Hake and others .. .. Appellants Versus Baliram S/o Bhaurao Ughade .. .. Respondent Shri S. G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri Ruturaj Patil, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 06TH OCTOBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 55/1978 seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the appellants in respect of the suit land. It was the case of the respondent that, the original owner Nivrutti had executed an sale deed in May 1969 in favour of Ramchandra and Ramchandra sold it to the respondent in 1975 and thus he derived title to the suit land. The respondent alleged that, the appellant No. 1 who happened to be wife of original owner Nivrutti and her agents got the suit land fraudulently mutated 2 in the name of the appellant No. 1's minor sons and with that, they were trying to interfere in the respondent's possession. 2. The appellant No. 1 filed written statement and took a stand that, Nivrutti had not sold the suit land to Ramchandra, but it was a loan transaction. She said that, Ramchandra obtained the sale deed as security for his loan. The second contention was that, when Nivrutti sold the property to Ramchandra, it was joint family property of Nivrutti and his two sons, and so, the title would not pass to Ramchandra and ultimately to the respondent. 3. Although, the trial Court accepted the defence of the appellants and dismissed the suit, the learned judge of the First Appeal Court held that, Nivrutti had sold the property as out and out sale and Ramchandra became owner of the same. In turn Ramchandra could transfer his title to the respondent. The learned judge of the First Appeal Court thus rejected the theory of loan, security, etc. Having gone through the reasoning, I find nothing perverse in it. The reasons are cogent and the learned judge of the First Appeal Court has rightly held that, the contents of the sale deed did not indicate that, it was not a sale deed. In order to support the case of the appellant No. 1, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of her tried to point out the fact that, the Trial Court held that, neither Ramchandra took possession of the suit land, nor the respondent had the possession of the same. He suggested that, since the possession of the purchaser is not clearly shown, the transaction could not have been of absolute sale. But this contention is already 3 met by the reasons recorded by the First Appeal Court and I am not inclined to accept the arguments. 4. As regards to title of Nivrutti, when he sold the property in 1969, the learned Judge of the First Appeal Court rightly held that, at that time, Nivrutti from time to time sold almost his entire holding which was about 18 Acre of agricultural land. It has come on record that, Nivrutti sold this property in three installments and neither his sons, nor his wife, the appellant took exception to it, though the sale deeds were executed more than fourteen years back. In addition to this, it is admitted fact that, the appellant No. 1 had filed a suit against Ramchandra and the respondent in 1975, soon after Nivrutti's death, seeking declaration that, the sale deed executed by Nivrutti in favour of Ramchandra was null and void, etc. This suit was dismissed in default and the appellant No. 1 did not file any appeal against the same. All these things were taken into account by the learned judge of the First Appeal Court while allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit of the respondent. I see no reason to disturb the findings, neither there is any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. [ A. V. NIRGUDE, J.] bsb/Oct. 09