1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 765/2005 WITH C.A. NO. 4898/2005 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. K.S. Chavan, Advocate for appellant. Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for resp. sole. [CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J ] Date : 7th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Heard both sides extensively. 2 Nagu Yadav executed a sale deed dated 22/04/1996 in favour of Keshav Bapurao Yadav (Plaintiff). The plaintiff felt that his possession was disturbed, he filed a suit for perpetual injunction. Lost. Consequently, moved Regular civil appeal no.212/2001 before Additional District Judge, Parbhani where the learned judge reversed the judgment of dismissal and decree in the suit, thereby 2 permanently restraining the defendants from causing obstruction in the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit house. 3 Mr. Chavan while extensively arguing matter submits that the grievance of wife of Nagu Yadav i.e. Shobhabai is, sale deed was executed by her husband Nagu under influence at Parbhani, it was not a genuine transaction. Second contention is, there existed rooms which remained in possession of either Nagu Yadav or his wife Shobhabai, as possession was not parted in favour of the plaintiff purchaser. To address this situation, a document at Ex. 29 of the T.I.L.R. was coined wherein some structure is shown to be in existence. The learned judge swayed away with the said document since he lost track of the matter that it was the City survey of composite property including other members of the Nagu’s brotherhood. The construction 3 that was given reference, even if accepted, could not be matched to the property subject of sale. 4 The recital in the sale deed is of purchase to open space, it will certainly not add spice in favour of the seller or his wife Smt. Shobhabai to translate that it was a sham or a bogus document. The Commissioner’s report indicates that there were two walls at the site. That by itself will not be acceptable to determine defendant’s possession over the property. The mutation entry in the City survey record in favour of purchaser Keshav also blast theory of Shobhabai or Nagu. In the situation, I do not find any error committed by first appellate court, which has analyzed the fact with evidence in a correct, legal position. The appeal lacks merit. It is dismissed with civil application. No cost. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] tsk/sa765.05