1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 651 OF 2008 Purushottam Dahyabhai Patel Since deceased through his legal heirs Smt. Bhagwantiben Purushottam Patel & Anr. .... Appellants V/s. Shri Vijay Popatlal Shah & Anr. .... Respondents ..... Mr.Shailendra S.Kanetkar. Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Shailendra S.Kanetkar i/by G.S.Godbole for the appellant (in S.A.No.593 of 2007). Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni i/by T.D.Deshmukh, for respondent no.1. ..... CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 4th September, 2009. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 This appeal is filed by the L.Rs. of the original defendant Purushottam Dahyabhai Patel. Said Purushottam claimed to have purchased 1/3 rd share out of the suit property consisting of Survey No.567, 568, 569 situated with the limits of village Chakan, Taluka Khed, District Pune under registered sale deed dated 30 th September 1997 from one Shripad Joshi. 2 Later on, said Shripad Joshi and his brother Bhalchandra sold their joint 2/3 rd share in the said property to respondent no.1/plaintiff-Vijay Popatlal Shah under the registered sale deed dated 10 th July 1998. Regular Civil Suit No.195 of 1999 was filed by the present respondents-Vijay Shah and Shripad Joshi seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 30 th September 1997 in favour of the defendant-Purushottam Patel was forged and fabricated document and that the plaintiff no.1-Vijay Shah was the owner of the property. The defendant denied all the adverse allegations and claimed that he had purchased the said 1/3 rd share of the suit property from Shripad Joshi for consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Legal heirs of the defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.335 of 2005. That appeal also came to be dismissed. Hence the Second Appeal. 3 There is a concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts below that the disputed sale deed dated 30 th September 1997 in favour of the defendant- Purushottam is a forged and fabricated document and was not executed by Shripad Joshi. The record 3 reveals that defendant-Purushottam did not enter into the witness box to depose about his contract with Shripad Joshi about payment of consideration amount and the execution and registration of the said sale deed. On his behalf two witnesses namely Laxman and Sampat were examined. The Court below noted that even though Laxman claimed to be an attesting witness, he could not identify defendant no.2-Shripad Joshi, who had allegedly executed the sale deed. Sampat deposed that he was acquainted with Shripad Joshi for long time and he was also involved in the negotiations about this transaction. According to him, he was present at the time of registration of sale deed when whole of the consideration amount was paid by the defendant-Purushottam to Shripad Joshi in cash. It is noted that on the sale deed, there is no endorsement by the sub-Registrar that the consideration amount was paid in his presence. In fact, the sale deed shows that the consideration amount was paid at home before execution of the document. Even though, said Sampat claimed that he was present at the time of registration of documentm the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar does not 4 show that he or another attesting witness Laxman was present. On the other hand two other persons namely Suresh Raghunath Alhat and Malhari Baburao Kesvad were present before the Sub-Registrar to identify the executant of the document. None of those two persons was examined on behalf of the defendant. It is also material to note that the disputed signatures purporting to be of Shripad Joshi on the said sale deed and his specimen signatures were referred to the Handwriting Expert. The Handwriting Expert reported that the said signatures on the sale deed are not of Shripad Joshi In view of all this material, the Courts below came to the conclusion that the sale deed is forged and fabricated document and doesn t give any title to defendant-Purshottam. 4 Taking into consideration the facts and the material noted above, I do not find any question of law involved in the present appeal. There is noting to show that the findings of the Courts below are perverse and perse illegal. No question of law is involved in the appeal. Therefore, there is no substance in the present appeal. 5 6 In the result this Second Appeal stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, there is nothing to survive in civil application no. 1674 of 2008 and stands disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)