1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal NO.459/2009 WITH CA/1938/2006 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. Sachin Joshi h/f Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for appellants. Mr. N.N. Desale, Advocate for respondent no.1. [CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J ] Date : 31st March, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Concurrent finding recorded against the appellants is questioned in the second appeal. The learned counsel while extensively arguing the matter has contended, Dashrath – father of the defendant had influence of illiteracy and consequently, the sale deed dated 16/10/1968 executed in favour of the plaintiff was not legally maintainable. 2 The second point that the learned counsel urged was, the sale transaction was contrary to the mandate of the boundary of Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Act for want of necessary permission. The sale deed dated 16/10/1968 indeed has not been disputed with the vigour and velocity. Venom operates only due to subsequent events and due to change in the mind set of family members. 2 The mutation entry No.1931 is certified by the competent authority after hearing both the sides in the regular inquiry and it was certified dated 10/09/1971. It certainly brace the respondents purchase transaction. There is a positive finding to this effect by learned judge in para 15 while answering issue no.5. 3 These observations coupled with answers to issues no. 6 and 7, being in tune with legal position, does not translate to formulate the substantial 3 question as tried to be canvassed. 4 Next point raised by the learned counsel is, the thumb impression of Dashrath on the sale deed being surrounded with clouds could have been compared and verified by the learned judge to a application (with revenue authority) moved by Dashrath during his life time. The learned judge has rejected the said exercise and certainly rightly. It is because, no such endeavour was made when Dashrath was alive and to provide his thumb, to match or dis match the thumb impression appearing on the sale deed. 5 The pleadings of the defendants disdain and blast the defence, as there is no denial to the execution of sale deed. It is shrouded with only a colour that Dashrath was illiterate. Since sale deed itself in latent words was accepted, the subsequent exercise of examination of the thumb impression either in terms of Section 45 or Section 73 of the Evidence 4 Act, was rightly negated by the Court. No substantial question of law. Second appeal sans merit. Dismissed. C.A. Dismissed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] tsk/sa459.09