1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2008 Smt. Muneerbegum Ibrahim Thittu & Anr. ..Appellants (Orig. Plaintiffs) Versus Shri Rappiuddin Husseinmiya Kungale .. Respondent (Orig. Defendant) Mr. R.M.Pethe, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. G.S.Godbole, Advocate i/b. Ms. Pallavi N.Dabholkar, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 11th August, 2008. DATE: 11th August, 2008. DATE: 11th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is the Second Appeal filed by the original plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property, being Survey No.84/1 admeasuring 78 Ares situated at Raya, Taluka Kalyan,which was later on re-numbered as Survey No.84 Hissa No.2, originally belonged to their great-grandfather. The property came in the hands of their father Sharfuddin, who died in 1943 leaving behind a widow and two daughters and a son 2 Abdul Ahed. The widow also died in 1967. The property continued to be in possession of Abdul Ahed. Abdul Ahed died on 29.8.1988 and thereafter the plaintiffs came to know that their brother Abdul Ahed had executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant. According to them, it was not a sale transaction, but a transaction of mortgage. therefore, they filed the suit for declaration that the alleged sale deed was in fact the mortgage deed, but the document was got executed by playing fraud on the plaintiffs. 3. The defendant contested the suit contending that it was an out-and-out sale. According to him, Abdul Ahed had sold the land to him under a registered sale deed dated 29.12.1971 and he was also put in possession of the same and since then he is in possession of the property as owner. As the suit was filed on 2.1.1992, it was barred by limitation. 4. In view of the rival pleadings, several issues were framed. The trial Court, after hearing the evidence, rejected the contention of the plaintiffs that it was a mortgage transaction and that any fraud was placed on the plaintiffs. The trial court also held that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs 3 preferred Civil Appeal No.109 of 2001. That appeal also came to be dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiffs have preferred the Second Appeal. 5. Concurrent findings of fact have been given by the Courts below. The father of the plaintiffs died in 1943 and their mother also died in 1967. Their brother had sold the property under a registered sale deed in 1971 and the defendant was put in possession. The plaintiffs never claimed any partition and separate possession of their share in land till 1971 or thereafter during the lifetime of their brother. The suit was field more than 21 years after the sale deed was executed. It is material to note that, according to the plaintiffs, they had given consent to their brother to mortgage the property, but the brother had executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant as some fraud was played on him. Both the Courts below rejected these contentions. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I find that no substantial question of law is involved in the matter. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. 4 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)