1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 110 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.K.S.Bhore,Advocate for the appellant Mr. Pisal, Advocate holding for Smt.Anjali Bajpai Dube, Advocate for Resp.No. 1 . .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is Appeal by original defendant nos. 2 to 6. The plaintiff had filed Suit seeking declaration of his title and injunction. The trial Court dismissed the Suit. The lower appellate Court partly allowed the Appeal to the extent of declaration and rejected the relief regarding injunction having found the defendant nos. 2 to 6 in possession of the property. The defendant nos. 2 to 6 have assailed the said Judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. 2 3. Mr. K.S.Bhore, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff of the year 1988 was not acted upon in as much as even in the revenue record, the names of the plaintiff were not recorded. The learned counsel submits that as the said sale deed was not acted upon and the names of the plaintiff were not recorded in the revenue record, the present appellant in good faith purchased the suit property from the original defendant no. 2, whose name was shown as owner in the revenue record. As such, the defendants/present appellants have purchased the suit property from the ostensible owner and their rights need to be protected. 4. Per contra, Mr. Pisal, the learned counsel holding for Smt. Anjali Bajpai Dube, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that when by registered sale deed the title was transferred to the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 had no title to pass it on to the present appellants and contends that the lower appellate Court has not committed any error. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 6. Once the defendant no. 1 by registered 3 instrument had sold the suit property to the plaintiff, thereafter the defendant no. 1 has lost his right of ownership over the suit property. The defendant no. 1 could not convey to the defendant nos. 2 to 6 the right which he did not possess. As the ownership rights are already vested with the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 had no authority to sale the property to defendant nos. 2 to 6. 7. Just because the names were not mutated in the revenue record, it can not be said that the sale deeds were not acted upon. More over, no declaration was sought of such nature by either of the defendants. 8. In light of the fact that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was proved, there was no error committed by the Court below in granting relief of declaration. In view of the same, the Second Appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law, as such is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 110.2011