: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.7 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.7 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.7 OF 2008 Subrao Rajaram Pawar ...Appellant V/s. Vimal Sadashiv Patil & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Umesh Mankapure, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr.Sandesh Patil, Advocate, for Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed by the Trial Court. The suit was essentially filed for exercising the alleged right of pre-emption in respect of the suit property. The case made out by the appellant-plaintiff is that apart from the right of pre-emption, the sale deed dated 23rd September, 1994 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent was void as by the said sale deed a fragment was transferred in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Hordings Act, 1947. The other challenge was that the same was in : 2 : contravention of the provisions of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that there was no issue framed by the Trial Court on the basis of assertion made by the appellant-plaintiff that the sale deed was void under the provisions of the said Act of 1947. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the Courts below on the existence of preferential rights is illegal. 2. I have carefully considered the submissions. No evidence has been adduced by the appellant to show that what was transferred by the sale deed was a fragment within the meaning of the said Act of 1947. Unless the said fact is established, the transfer is not hit by section 7 read with section 9 of the said Act of 1947. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission based on the provisions of the said Act of 1947. Though the Trial Court may not have framed an issue, the Appellate Court has considered the said submission. It is not the case of the appellant that any prejudice has been caused to him by reason of the failure of the Trial Court to frame an issue on this aspect. The right of pre-emption has been rightly negatived by the Courts below. In sofar as alleged : 3 : violation of provisions of section 48 of the said Act of 1960 is concerned, the Appellate Court has rightly held that in view of a decision of this Court, the appellant-plaintiff has no locus to challenge the sale deed. 3. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]