1 SA390/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 390 OF 2009 Shaikh Usman s/o Sk. Burhan (died) through L.Rs. Appellant V E R S U S Madhaorao Pandurang Ugale & another Respondent Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the appellant Mr. G.K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 17th June, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. The Courts below held that the appellant / plaintiff did not have title to the suit plot which his father sold to the respondents. However, in the sale- deed, admittedly, the plaintiff’s father represented that he was selling the suit property to the respondents as attorney of the plaintiff. He also represented that it is the plaintiff who was owner of the plot and he was authorized to sell the same to them. Taking advantage of these recitals in the sale-deed, the appellant / plaintiff came with a case that he had not authorized his father to sell the property to the respondents, but the Courts below, as said above, held that the appellant / plaintiff could not prove his title to the suit plot. The Courts below categorically held that the plaintiff’s father was the owner and was entitled to alienate the property. In view of this, the purchasers would get valid title, no matter what the recitals in the sale-deed said. There is no substantial question of law arose in this appeal. Second Appeal stands dismissed. 2 SA390/09 In view of dismissal of the second appeal, C.A. No. 13291 of 2008 stands disposed of. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/sa/390/09/17/6/11