IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.371 OF 2010 (RAMPYARI LAXMAN BHILAWEKAR & ONE...VS.. SMT. GUMFABAI KAMALCHAND SAGDE & ANR..) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.B.Mirza, Advocate for appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for possession of the suit property which comprised of agricultural land. According to the plaintiffs, the predecessor of the plaintiffs by name Sahu was the tenant in the suit land and after his death his son Kamalchand became the tenant thereof. Kamalchand died in the year 2001 leaving the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. The plaintiffs pleaded that since the defendants were looking after the cultivation of the land for some time they managed to get their names mutated in 7/12 extracts and also created some false documents. The plaintiffs pleaded that the plaintiffs were unlawfully and forcibly dispossessed from the suit land in the year 2002. Hence, the suit was instituted. 3. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiffs. They, however, admitted that the suit land was held by Sahu and Kamalchand as tenants. They, however, pleaded that Kamalchand had agreed to sell the suit land to the defendants for a consideration of Rs.54,000/- which was paid to Kamalchand. They pleaded that they were, therefore, entitled to protect their possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act as they were put in the possession of the suit land on the date of execution of the agreement of sale on payment of the consideration of Rs.54,000/-. The defendants, therefore, sought for the dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that the defendants had created a fabricated document in the nature of the gift deed by practicing fraud and so it was not binding on the plaintiffs. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs had not succeeded in proving that the defendants had taken forcible possession of the suit land, as the defendants were cultivating the suit property on the basis of agreement of sale dated 05.05.1998. The trial Court held that Kamalchand had agreed to sell the suit property to the defendant for a consideration of Rs.54,000/- and the defendants were, therefore, entitled to protect their possession over the suit property. The suit of the plaintiffs was ultimately dismissed. 5. The first appellate Court, on a reappreciation of the material evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving their title over the suit property and the defendants had not succeeded in proving that they were entitled to protect their possession over the suit property in view of the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The first appellate Court, therefore, reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court. 6. The findings recorded by the first appellate Court are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The first appellate Court rightly held that the defendants were not entitled to protect their possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act as admittedly the suit filed by the defendants for specific performance of the contract of sale of the suit property in their favour was dismissed by the Courts. In such circumstances, according to the first appellate Court, the plaintiffs were entitled to seek possession of the property belonging to them. The findings of facts recorded by the first appellate Court do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE RR.