: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.166 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2010 ALONGWITH SECOND APPEAL NO.167 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.467 OF 2010 Tatyasaheb Baburao Katkar & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Gokulabai Narayan Tupe & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V. Talkute for the Appellants. Mr. P.G. Chavan for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 12 TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.: 1. These Second Appeals are preferred against the Judgments and Orders dated 20th February, 2003 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahiwadi in Regular Civil Suit No.250 of 1995 and confirmed by the Judgments and Orders dated 4th March, 2010 passed by the Extra Joint Ad-hoc District Judge, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 110 of 2003 and 278 of 2003. : 2 : 2. The appellants had filed a Suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit property being old Gat No.2169 which has been assigned the new Gat No.3029 in Village Kukudwad, Tal. Man, District Satara. A Counter Claim was filed by the defendants claiming to be owners of the property and they sought an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with their possession of the suit property. Both the Suit and the Counter Claim were heard and by a common Judgment the trial Court dismissed the Suit of the plaintiffs, i.e. the appellants herein, while allowing the Counter Claim of the defendants. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiffs preferred two Appeals before the District Court, Satara. The District Court, Satara has dismissed both the Appeals and hence the present Second Appeals. 3. The plaintiffs claimed that they owned the suit property as their predecessor in title, their father Balu Maruti Katkar, had purchased the same : 3 : by a Sale Deed executed on 26th October, 1951 from Krishnabai. She was the guardian of Parvatibai, the landlady. Both the Courts below have held that when the Deed of Sale was allegedly executed in 1951, Parvatibai was a major and therefore, Krishnabai had no right to execute the Deed on behalf of Parvatibai. The Courts below have also cast a doubt on this Deed because the purchasers took no steps to have their names mutated in the revenue records for over two years. On the other hand, both the Courts below accepted the fact that the Suit property was purchased by Ramu Daji Tupe, the father of the defendant from Parvatibai by executing the Deed of Sale. The proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act resulted in a declaration that as a tenant Ramu Daji Tupe was entitled to purchase the suit property and the proceedings were closed under Section 32-F. Both the Courts therefore held that the defendants had proved their title over the suit property and granted an injunction in favour of the defendants accordingly. : 4 : 4. A submission is raised by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the restrictions contained in Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act were not applicable to the sale of 1951. This submission need not be considered as in any event the sale of 1951 on which the plaintiffs have relied has not been accepted by both the Courts below in view of the fact that it was executed by Krishnabai and not Parvatibai, who was the landlady. Therefore, assuming the restrictions contained in Section 43 are not applicable to the sale of 1951, when the sale itself is invalid, the question of considering whether the restrictions are applicable does not arise. 5. In my view, both the Courts below have committed no error by dismissing the Suit and allowing the Counter Claim filed by the defendants. No substantial questions of law arise in the present Second Appeals and hence, the Second Appeals are dismissed. : 5 : 6. On the application of the learned Advocate for the appellants, the order of status-quo granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of eight weeks from today. 7. In view of the above, Civil Applications pending in these Second Appeals do not survive and the same are dismissed as infructuous.