1 sa356.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.356 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9166 OF 2011 Liladhar s/o Tukaram Wani, Age: 57 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Near Tillu Masjid, Dharangaon, Tq. Dharangaon, District Jalgaon. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Dr. Ku. Surekha Shamlal Totala, Age: 39 years, Occ: Medical Officer, R/o. Opp. Brahman Otta, Erandol, Tq. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. R.C. Patil, Advocate for appellant/applicant. Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, Advocate for respondent sole. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below. The appellant herein 2 sa356.11 asserts his right on the basis of agreement to sell which was placed on record of the trial Court at Exhibit-58. The case of the appellant was that, the wife of the appellant entered into agreement to sell with the original owner of the suit premises namely Prakash Mango Patil. Said agreement to sell is dated 05-03-1998. The appellant does not dispute that in the said agreement to sell, condition which was stipulated was that the said agreement to sell should be registered on or before 15-04-1998. Therefore, the agreement to sell which is the basis of the case of the appellant, was not even between the appellant and the said Prakash Mango Patil but the case of the appellant is that, the said agreement to sell was entered between his wife and Prakash Mango Patil. 3. The Counsel for the appellant on instructions from his client would submit that, the wife of appellant has filed civil suit in the year 2011 praying therein that, the sale deed 3 sa356.11 executed between the original plaintiff and respondent herein on 15-04-1998 is not binding upon her. Therefore, according to the Counsel for the appellant, the agreement to sell between his wife and Prakash Mango Patil was earlier in time and therefore, the said document at Exhibit-58 would prevail over the sale deed executed by Prakash Mango Patil in favour of the plaintiff at Exhibit-43. Therefore, according to the Counsel for the appellant, the appellant is in continuous possession of the suit property from 05-03-1998 and since the said document at Exhibit-59 is prior in time, the second appeal deserves consideration. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that, on 15-04-1998 respondent herein who is the original plaintiff has got executed sale deed from original owner Prakash Mango Patil and the said sale deed was placed on the record of trial Court at Exhibit-43. The appellant was staying in the suit premises since he is friend of brother of the plaintiff and 4 sa356.11 the said premises were given on licence. Both the Courts have concurrently held against the appellant. Therefore, according to the Counsel for the respondent, second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and therefore, same may be dismissed summarily. 5. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that, the agreement to sell entered between the wife of the appellant and Prakash Mango Patil-original owner on 05-03-1998 stipulating condition therein that, the said agreement to sell is required to be registered on or before 15-04-1998. Admittedly, the agreement to sell was not registered and therefore, there was breach of condition as stipulated in the said agreement to sell. It is also not in dispute that, the document at Exhibit-43 registered sale deed between the plaintiff and Prakash Mango Patil was placed on record. The case of the appellant that, the appellant borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the brother of 5 sa356.11 the plaintiff and therefore, such sale deed was required to be executed under compulsion, is devoid of any merits since same sale deed was executed by the original owner Prakash Mango Patil in favour of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have negated the contention of the appellant to the above effect. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and in view of registered sale deed at Exhibit-43 dated 15-04-1998 both the Courts have held that, by virtue of the sale deed, the original plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises and the further case of the plaintiff that the suit premises were given to the appellant on licence is also accepted by both the Courts below. Therefore, second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law, same stands dismissed summarily. Consequently, Civil Application stands rejected. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/NOV11