1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2007 Rajaram Balasaheb Ardalkar ... Appellant v/s Dhondiraj Dattatray Jadhav & anr. ... Respondents Mr.R.S.Apte i/by Mr.Mandar Limaye for the appellant. Mr.S.R.Ganbavle for Resp. Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 30TH MARCH, 2010 P.C.: 1. The second appeal has been preferred against the findings of fact arrived at by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. Both the Courts below have held that plaintiff No.1 was the owner of the suit property and that he had subsequently sold that property to plaintiff No.2. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff No.1 was in possession of the suit property when the suit was filed. He was illegally dispossessed on 9.5.1982. The Courts below have also found that the sale deed executed on 29.9.1977 is not sham and bogus as contended by the defendants. 2 2. Mr.Apte appearing for the defendant/appellant submits that the plaintiffs had executed the deed of sale in favour of respondent No.1 only because of the latter’s father, who was a member of the Co-operative Bank. The Co-operative Bank had a charge over the suit property despite which the defendant was persuade to execute the deed by playing a fraud on him. He submits that when there is a charge of the property under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (in short, M.C.S. Act), no property can be sold or transferred without the previous permission of the Society. He further submits that such proceedings are void under sub- section 3 of Section 47 of the M.C.S. Act. The learned counsel therefore submits that the present transaction is void. He further points out that a fraud vitiates all transactions and in the present case both the Courts below have not considered this aspect. 3. In my opinion, the appellant has not made out a case involving substantial questions of law. The appellate Court has considered the submissions with respect to fraud and has dealt with them properly. The Courts below have also considered the submissions made under Section 47 of the M.C.S. Act and have rightly held that it is only the Bank which can challenge the same or seek a declaration that the sale is void. 3 4. Apart from this, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the suit property was ancestral property and that the deed of sale was not signed by his brother. In my opinion, this circumstance cannot work in favour of the appellant. If at all it was ancestral property, it would be for the brother to seek a declaration that the sale was invalid. 5. Significantly, there is no proceeding filed by the appellant for a declaration that the transaction between him and respondent No.1 is void. 6. No substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present second appeal. 7. Second appeal stands dismissed along with the civil application No.273 of 2007. ..... 4