1 (SA 335 of 2000) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 335 OF 2000 Kisan Parasharam Sutar and Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Dinkar Rajaram Sutar and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh for Appellants ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 30th June, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and the Respondents. 2. This Second Appeal is filed by the original Defendants. Quite surprisingly, though the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2000, it appeared on the Admission Board almost after 11 months. On two occasions, the Second Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution and, thereafter, it was restored. 3. Brief facts are that the Appellants are the Original Defendants and the Respondents are the Original Plaintiffs (for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as “the Defendants and the Plaintiffs”). The Plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that they are 2 (SA 335 of 2000) the absolute owners of the suit property and for injunction restraining the Defendants from obstructing their possession. According to the Plaintiffs, they became owners of the suit properties by virtue of the sale deed which was executed by one Mr.Bhosale in their possession by a registered sale deed dated 19th November, 1965. After the Defendants started obstructing the Plaintiffs from using the said property, they filed the said suit. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal filed by the Defendants was also dismissed. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that in the years 1948 , 1949 and 1950, three properties were belonging to the joint family of the Defendants and the Plaintiffs were sold to Mr.Bhosale. He submitted that the sale deed in reality was a conditional sale and the property in fact, was mortgaged. According to the Defendants, this property was reconveyed by the said Bhosale to the Plaintiffs and, therefore, the Defendants also had a share in the said property. Reliance was placed on the recital of the sale deed dated 19.11.1965. It was submitted that no evidence was led by the Plaintiffs to show that there was a partition amongst the members of the joint family and, 3 (SA 335 of 2000) therefore, the property which was reconveyed belong to all the co-parceners. It was, therefore, submitted that both the Courts below did not properly appreciate this fact. 5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellants cannot be accepted. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law is raised in the Second Appeal. It will not be possible to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)