1 74-506-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srj SECOND APPEAL NO.506 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1056 OF 2010 Smt. Shakuntala V. Chavan .. Appellant V/s. Shri Vasant Y. Dudhane & Ors., .. Respondents Shri Chetan G. Patil, for Appellant. Shri Prahlad Paranjape i/b. Shri N.Y.Chavan, for Respondent Nos.1A to 1R. CORAM:- B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED:- 31st AUGUST,2010. P.C. 1 The present second appeal challenges the concurrent orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tasgaon, dated 31st August, 1999 in R.C.S.No. 135 of 1996 thereby decreeing the suit filed by the Respondents and the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli in R.C.S.No.359 of 1999 thereby dismissing the Appeal. 2 74-506-10.sxw 2 Shri Patil, learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that both the courts below have failed to take into consideration that the suit filed by the Respondents is for redemption of mortgage of the suit premises. He further submitted that as per the mortgage deed, the right to redeem the mortgage accrued only on the payment of the principal amount only on the tenth Chaitra Padva from the date of the execution of the mortgage deed. It it submitted that since the mortgage deed is executed in 1990, the right to redeem mortgage deed could not accrue prior to 2000. He further submitted that courts below have failed to take into consideration this respect. He submitted that though the mortgage deed was for 16 Are of land, the decree has been passed for 21 Are of land. 3 Shri Paranjape, learned Advocate for the Respondents on the contrary submits that the courts below have concurrently decreed the suit. 4 The courts below on appreciation of mortgage deed have held that as per the mortgage deed, the Plaintiff was entitled to redeem the mortgage on payment of principle 3 74-506-10.sxw amount on any chaitra padva. Upon the perusal of the mortgage deed, it cannot be say that any error has been committed by the courts below in arriving at such finding. In so far second contention of the Appellant regarding mortgage deed being for 16 Are of land and decree being for 21 Are are is concerned, it could be seen that the trial court has proved that initially the land was recorded as 16 Are and after re-measurement necessary entries in 7/12 extract have been entered after following requisite procedure, so as to correct the area of land from 16 Are to 21 Are. 5 No substantial question of law arises for consideration. No interference is warranted in the present Second Appeal. Hence, Second Appeal stands rejected. (B.R.GAVAI,J.)