1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 360 of 2008 Vasantrao Namdeorao Deshmukh Vs. Damodar Mahadeorao Kalaskar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri J. B. Kasat, Adv. for appellant. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 24 th November, 2008. Heard counsel for the appellant. The appellants had instituted a suit for possession and declaration of the suit property of which they were the owners. It is their contention that Pramila wife of plaintiff No.1 had purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed from defendant on 12/03/1979 who is said to be her cousin. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that in the year 2003 defendant forcibly took 2 possession and dispossessed the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs instituted suit for possession and declaration. Defendant resisted the suit by filing the Written Statement and contended that he had never sold the suit field to his sister Pramila. On the other hand he has been always in possession of the suit property inspite of the execution of the sale deed. He submits that sale deed was executed by way of security for the loan taken by him for meeting the expenses of illness of members of his family. The learned Judge of the trial Court upon consideration of the evidence found as fact that defendant was in possession of the suit property inspite of the sale deed having been executed. The learned Judge considered the evidence and found that the defendant had executed the sale deed as a security for the loan taken by him and the sale deed was not to be acted upon. Learned Judge has dismissed the suit. Appellate Court also concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Shri Kasat learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below were not correct. 3 He contends that infact the defendant should have filed a suit for declaration that sale deed was void and was not to be acted upon. This submission is not correct. There is no need for the defendant to file such a suit. The defendant has raised a plea that the sale deed was never intended to be acted upon and when he was tried to be dispossessed he rightly raised the defence. The Courts below have clearly found that defendant was in possession of the property and transaction was one of money lending and sale deed was nominal. All these questions are questions of fact and have been clearly answered against the plaintiff. No questions of law are raised. Appeal is therefore dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk