* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.95 OF 2009 Shri Sayabu Bhimrao Dhotre .... Appellant Vs. Shri Shivaji Maruti Waghire & Ors. .... Respondents ------- Mr.V.D. Raut, Advocate for appellant. Mr.A.V. Anturkar i/by Mr. S.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents 1(a) to 1(h), 11 and 12. Mr.Pallavi Dabholkar, Advocate for respondents no. 3 and 4. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Dated : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This Second Appeal challenges concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellant is original defendant No.1. Respondents no.1 to 5 are the original plaintiffs and respondents no. 6 to 10 are original defendants no.2 to 6. During pendency of the present proceedings respondents no. 1,2,5,6 and 8 expired. Their respective * 2 * heirs have been brought on record. Respondents no.11 and 12 have been added as parties to the appeal as according to the appellant, they have purchased the suit property from the heirs of respondent no.1 and respondents no. 3 and 4. 3. Original plaintiffs and original defendants No.2 to 6 constituted a joint family. The plaintiffs had instituted suit for partition being Civil Suit No.682 of 1963. The suit was decreed declaring shares of the parties including 1/3rd share of the plaintiffs with directions for partition and separate possession. On the execution application filed by the plaintiffs, the Collector partitioned the property by metes and bounds and allotted land at Survey No. 101/1/B to the plaintiffs. The survey therefor was carried on 23rd February 1972 and possession handed over to the plaintiffs on 20th August 1979. 4. Original defendants no.2 and 3, during the pendency of execution proceedings sold land at survey No.101/1/B (the suit land) to defendant no.1 vide sale deed dated 7th April 1975. Defendant No.1 later entered into the land and started construction thereon. That is when the plaintiffs learnt about the purported sale and filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed and for possession of the suit land. * 3 * 5. The suit was contested by defendant no.1 raising following contentions : . The description of the suit property as shown in the plaint is not correct. Defendant no.1 is a bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice of the suit and hence the decree is not binding on him. Plaintiffs and defendant no.1 being residents of the same village, the plaintiffs must be deemed to be aware of the transaction of sale between defendants no.2 and 3 and defendant no.1. Since, defendant no.1 purchased the property from a co-parcener, he is entitled to retain possession of the land in his occupation. The suit is not maintainable in view of Section 47 Civil Procedure Code and lastly the suit is barred by the law of limitation. 6. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the suit property has been correctly described in the plaint and plaintiffs are the owners thereof. The sale of the suit property by defendants no.2 and 3 to defendant no.1 is illegal as they had no right to sell the land. The trial court rejected the claim of defendant no.1 that he is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice and declared him to be a trespasser in respect of the suit property. The trial court also held that the suit is not hit by Section 47 Civil Procedure Code and that the same is filed within the prescribed period of limitation. * 4 * The appellate court confirmed all the findings of facts, as well as, law and dismissed the appeal filed by defendant no.1. I have perused the judgments of both the courts below and I am satisfied that the conclusions drawn by the courts are reasonable and supported by the evidence. 7. Mr.Raut, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that, a substantial question of law arises in the present proceedings as regards interpretation of the document relating to description of the suit property. He further submits that misinterpretation of a document as regards description of the suit property is a substantial question of law. In support of his submission, he relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chandrasekharan and Others V/S. S.Kanakarajan and Others reported in (2007) 5 SCC page 669. The Apex Court in the decision cited was considering the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code. Facts of that case were, the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code, had framed substantial questions of law relating to the lower appellate court ignoring the documentary evidence relating to description of the suit property and misreading of the deposition of a witness. The conclusions of the lower appellate court were also enunciated by * 5 * non-consideration of five documents containing description of the property. The Apex Court held that misreading and misinterpreting a document of title read with other documents and the plan for the identification of the suit lands whereupon the plaintiffs themselves relied upon, a substantial question of law had arisen for determination of the High Court in between the parties to the suit. In the facts of the present case, no such question falls for consideration of this court. All that defendant no.1 contends, is that the description given in the plaint is incorrect as the same does not match with the description of the property in the sale-deed in his favour. Both the courts below have held that the plaint contains sufficient description of the suit property i.e. Survey No.101/1/B by describing its boundaries which is sufficient to locate the property. In these facts, the decision relied upon by Mr.Raut is not applicable to the present case. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration of this court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]