1 SA490.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 490 OF 2011 Khandu Appa Dhone ... Appellant v/s Babu Bayaji Chandanshive ... Respondent Mr.Surel S. Shah for the appellant. Mr.Pavan Patil for respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 14TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C.: 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. It is the plaintiff’s case that he had sought an injunction against the defendant from disturbing his possession in respect of the suit property. The defendant contended before the Trial Court that the suit property was sold by a registered sale deed dated 24.6.1961. Although the plaintiff admitted having executed the document, it was contended that the document was in respect of a loan transaction and was not a sale. The 2 SA490.11 Trial Court has considered the same on evidence and has found that the document is a registered sale deed in respect of the suit property. 2. Mr.Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Appellate Court was duty bound to consider the same document once again to ascertain as to whether it was a registered sale deed in respect of the suit property or a loan transaction. 3. I have perused the Appellate Court’s judgment and order and I find that the Appellate Court has recorded its finding that the defendant became the owner of the suit property on account of the registered sale deed. Thus, the Appellate Court has in fact considered the document and found that it is a registered sale deed and not a loan document. 4. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below indicating that the plaintiff had not proved his case that his possession was being obstructed by the defendant, the second appeal is dismissed. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) 3 SA490.11 4 SA490.11