1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.251 OF 2010. Manik S/o Patilba Sagale ... Appellant. Versus Uttam S/o Ramji Kotambe ... Respondent. ... Mr.P.D.Suryawanshi, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Paturkar, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 04.10.2010. PER COURT 1. This is defendant's Second Appeal. The present Respondent/original plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the land bearing land Gat No.113 to the extent of 2 60 ares on the ground that the defendant had executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2001 and pursuant thereto, the plaintiff has become owner and possessor of the suit property. Both the Courts have decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has approached this Court. 2. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was nominal one and was as a security. The transaction between the plaintiff was that of money lending transaction. The Courts have not discussed about the recitals of the sale deed. According to the learned counsel, the defendant had even taken objection to the mutation entries. According to him, the Courts below have not properly construed the evidence on record. 3. Per contra, Mr.Paturkar, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that both the Courts have rightly come to the conclusion that the sale deed in question was an out and out 3 sale and it was not a money lending transaction. According to him, even earlier a suit was filed by the defendant for mandatory injunction bearing RCS No.2/1999. The same was withdrawn in 2001 and on the very same day, the sale deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. All these facts belies the theory of the defendant that the transaction between the parties was a money lending transaction. 4. I have heard the learned counsels and have also gone through the judgments. The fact that earlier suit was filed by the defendant against the plaintiff is not disputed. It is also a fact that the said suit was withdrawn by the defendant as compromise had taken place and on the very same day, the defendant executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The Courts have also discussed the evidence of the attesting witnesses and have come to the conclusion that the transaction in question was that of out and out sale. There was no evidence showing that the transaction being a money lending transaction. 4 5. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence. No perversity is found in the appreciation of the evidence. As such the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa251.10