1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 762 OF 2009 Sumanbai w/o Sakharam Jadhav, Aged 55 years, Occ. Agriculture and Household, R/o Khokadpura, Aurangabad, Taluka and District Aurangabad Appellant V E R S U S Rameshkumar s/o Jeetumal Bagadia, Aged 52 years, Occupation Business, R/o Bagadia Mills, Jafar Gate, Mondha, Aurangabad Respondent Mr. S.P. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant Mr. L.D. Vakil, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 10th August, 2010 PER COURT : 1. At the request of learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, appeal is restored to file. 2. Heard for admission. 3. This appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The case of the appellant / plaintiff was as under : 4. She said, she agreed to sell the suit land to the respondent, but she said that she was not paid the consideration though she executed the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent. She asserted that it was agreed between the parties that until she was paid the consideration, the respondent / purchaser would not get his name mutated as owner of the suit land in the revenue record. She said 2 that the respondent / purchaser tried to get his name mutated in the revenue record before she is paid the consideration. She said, she opposed such move before the concerned revenue authority. At the same time, she filed the present suit for declaration that the transaction of sale was invalid for want of consideration. The Courts below dismissed the suit holding that the transaction was valid. 5. The case of the appellant clearly shows that the transaction was a valid transaction and the appellant consciously and willingly executed the sale deed. So, there was no question of viodability of such transaction for want of free consent etc. There arises no substantial question of Law in this case. I am aware that there is marked difference in the contents of the true copies of the sale deed received by the parties. In one true copy, there is an endorsement that the appellant had received the amount at the time of execution of sale deed, and in other true copy, such endorsement is conspicuously absent. However, assuming that the appellant was not paid the consideration at the time of sale deed, she is unable to avoid the transaction, because she consciously executed the sale deed and allowed the respondent to pay the consideration to her subsequently till the respondent would approach the revenue authorities for mutation. In view of this, the appeal would fail. Appeal stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/sa/762/09