ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 421 OF APPEAL NO. 421 OF APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2007 2007 2007 Tanubai Dattu Samdole & Anr. ...Appellants. Vs. Appaso Baslinga Lambe & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.V.B.Rajure for the Appellants. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 2nd June, 2008 : 2nd June, 2008 : 2nd June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . This is a Second Appeal filed by the appellants, as the original suit for declaration of the sale deed executed by the Defendant on 30th August, 1979, is null and void and for recovery of possession of the suit property with respect to the shares as claimed, was dismissed. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed. 2. Some time in the year 1991, the Plaintiff- Appellant had filed the suit for the said declaration. The Appellants case that they had no knowledge of the said transaction is not accepted by the lower court, for want of material on record. ( 2 ) 3. The issue of no legal necessity to mortgage the suit property in question also held against them rightly by the courts below. Having once agitated the issue of no legal necessity, it was for the parties to prove that through the sale deed the property was not physically transferred. 4. There is no dispute that the Appellants or the deceased were not in possession of the property. Having once delivered the possession of the suit property in the year 1979 itself, the case that they have no knowledge of the said transaction is not accepted. There is ignorance shown about the transaction and filed the present suit in the year 1991. This facet, as observed by the Courts below is not correct. 5. The submission that the admission as recorded is the basis for contesting the issue of limitation. The said admission itself, even if any, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be the ground to discard the finding so arrived at by the Trial Court. 6. The said mutation entry in the revenue record is ( 3 ) one of the facet to demonstrate that the Appellants have knowledge about the said transaction. 7. Apart from the above reasoning, as recorded, having once held by the Courts below that the suit is beyond the limitation, there is no perversity to interfere in the view so taken by the courts below based upon the material available on record. 8. Considering the material on record, no case is made out to interfere in the findings given by the courts below. 9. In totality, therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)