1 (CAS 979 of 2010 in SA 386 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 979 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPLEAL NO. 386 OF 2010 Mahendra Eknath Mahimkar ...Applicant/ Appellant Vs. Harishchandra Gajanan Mhashelkar ...Respondent ----- Mr.P.M. Arjunwadkar for Applicant Mr.S.G. Karandikar for Respondent ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 10th March, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff and the Respondent is the Original Defendants (for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as “the Plaintiff and the Defendant”). The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and an order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from obstructing his possession. The Plaintiff’s case is that the suit property was purchased by his father from the original owner Shankar Kashinath Pisat by registered sale deed 2 (CAS 979 of 2010 in SA 386 of 2010) dated 30th September, 1947 for a lawful consideration and subsequently on 23rd April, 1968, the father of the Plaintiff executed mortgage cum conditional sale in favour of Ramchandra Damodar Tekalkar. The Plaintiff contended that his father had tendered the amount of mortgage to the Defendant with an understanding that after the amount was paid, Shri Tekalkar would execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant executed a registered sale deed in his own name on 28th March, 1978. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff and the appeal filed by him in the District Court was also dismissed. Both the Courts have held that the Plaintiff had not challenged the earlier registered sale deed dated 23rd April, 1968 and further had not proved that his father had paid the amount to the Defendant in order to clear the mortgage which was created by Shri Tekalkar. 3. Since both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, it will not be possible to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Lower Courts. No substantial question of law is raised in the Second Appeal and, therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application does not survive and is also disposed of. 3 (CAS 979 of 2010 in SA 386 of 2010) (V.M. KANADE J.)