1 S.A. No. 305 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 305 OF 2008 Kabula Husseni S/o Afjal Husseni Jahagirdar .. APPELLANT VERSUS Mahaboob S/o Pashamiyan Patel & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri Milind Patil, Advocate for the appellant CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 29th November, 2010. PER COURT : This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deeds dated 14th April, 2008 and 29th January, 2009 to the extent of 20 R land and for declaration that he is owner of the suit land. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment and Decree in the present Second Appeal. 2 S.A. No. 305 of 2008 2. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that Courts below have failed to consider the admission given by the defendant in his deposition. The learned Counsel further argued that both the Courts perversely appreciated the evidence on record, thereby have committed an error in dismissing the suit. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have gone through the Judgments delivered by both the Courts. No doubt in the examination-in- chief the plaintiff has stated about the fact that the sale-deed was executed excluding 20 guntha land. The same is referable to the sale- deed which was executed in the year 1998, thereafter, on 29th January, 1999 there is a correction deed to the sale-deed executed in the year 1998 and by a separate sale-deed of the even date the 33 R. land was sold which was remaining. As such, the statement in examination-in-chief of the defendant No. 1 cannot be read in isolation. 3 S.A. No. 305 of 2008 4. The plaintiff has pleaded that the sale-deed is got executed by the defendant from plaintiff by playing fraud upon the plaintiff. Heavy burden lies on plaintiff to prove the ingredients of fraud. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence, have held that the plaintiff could not prove the Act of fraud on the part of defendant while getting the sale-deed executed, registered instruments are on record. There is nothing to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the defendant. 5. In the light of the above, the view taken by the Courts below is a possible view. The Second Appeal cannot be entertained only on the ground that some other view also may be possible. 6. In the light of above, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the Second 4 S.A. No. 305 of 2008 Appeal, the Civil Application is also disposed of accordingly. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 305.10SA/291110