( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2009 Arjun s/o Shivaji Sawase APPELLANT VERSUS Dhondiram s/o Ashruba Matre and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. N.P. Bangar, advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.C. Mayure, advocate holding for Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellant is original plaintiff. He filed suit (R.C.S. No. 147/2000) for cancellation of sale-deed dated 21-06-2000 and perpetual injunction. He alleged that the said sale-deed was executed in favour of defendant No. 1 by way of security for repayment of loan ( 2 ) obtained by him. He had taken loan of Rs. 40,000/- from defendant No. 1 for which the latter demanded security by showing the payment as Rs. 47,000/-. The defendant No. 1 attempted to grab the suit land and refused to reconvey the same when willingness was shown by the plaintiff to pay amount of Rs. 37,000/- since he had already paid Rs. 10,000/- in the year 1997. Consequently, he sought declaration that the sale-deed was not binding on him and his ownership remained intact. The suit came to be dismissed. The first Appellate Court confirmed the decree. 3. It is argued that the first Appellate Court committed patent error while disallowing the application of the appellant to adduce further evidence under Order- XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellant desired to produce on record school leaving certificate in order to show that he was minor at the relevant time when the sale-deed was executed. He asserted that the sale-deed itself was void because he was then incompetent to alienate the suit land. It is contended that the trial Court and the first Appellate Court did ( 3 ) not give proper findings on the question of lawful possession. It is argued that report of the Commissioner was overlooked by the Courts below and the fact that there is a small farmhouse in the suit land with some utensils, etc. could be treated as indicative of the plaintiff’s possession. 4. So far as request of the appellant to adduce further evidence is concerned, I find that in the appeal memo before the first Appellate Court, he stated in the ground No. 10 that he was of major age at the relevant time. It is also manifest that no issue about incompetency of the appellant was raised before the trial Court. It was never his case before the trial Court that he was minor at the time of execution of the sale-deed and, therefore, the transfer could not be effected due to the dis-ability arising out of his minority. It is obvious that he could not be allowed to make out a new case at the appellate stage. Both the Courts have rendered findings of facts based on appreciation of the evidence. The appellant did not examine any attesting witness or scribe of the document ( 4 ) to highlight real nature of the transaction. It is not his case that a separate agreement was entered into between them for reconveyance of the land in question. The transaction was not, admittedly, marked by conditional sale in as much as no such condition is enumerated in the document itself as required under section 58 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act. Under these circumstances, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The second appeal is outside the scope of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code in view of “Gurdev Kaur and others v. Kaki and others” (AIR 2006 SC 1975). Hence, the appeal is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa666-09