1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.665 OF 2007 WITH C.A.S. NO.2302 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the appellant. Mr.P.D.Dalvi for respondent no.1. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 05.06.2008 P.C. The present second appeal is by original defendant no.1. After considering the material available on record, the trial court has held that the plaintiff proved the lawful possession over the property and, therefore, restrained the defendants permanently from obstructing and interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit property. The appeal filed by the 2 appellant is also resulted into the same fate as the plaintiff’s claim over the suit property is referable to the title. The appellate Court has also observed in para 9 as under: "9. I have gone through the entire evidence on record. It appears that defendant no.1 has admitted the execution of sale deed of plot no.4 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff. His main contention is that he agreed to sale the suit plot to the plaintiff for Rs.26,000/- but he received Rs.1000/- only. As the plaintiff has not paid Rs.25,000/- that sale deed is not valid. I cannot accept this contention. As per provisions of Transfer of Property Act even the promise to pay the consideration is sufficient to pass the title. Sop if Rs.25,000/- are not paid it is necessary for defendant no.1 to file the suit for recovery of the balance amount of consideration. Apart from that 3 legal position absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that the price of the suit property was decided at Rs.26,000/-." Taking all this into consideration and accepting the view and reasoning given by the courts below apart from hearing both the counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that reasons and findings so arrived at need no interference. There is no perversity apart from any question of law. The second appeal is therefore dismissed. C.A.No.2302/2005 is also accordingly dismissed. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]