-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.742 OF 2003 APPEAL NO.742 OF 2003 APPEAL NO.742 OF 2003 Mukund Vithal Bondve ...Appellant vs. Gulabrao Marutrao Ranaware & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.B.Rajure for the Appellant Mr.Shekhar i/b M/s.Shekhar & Co. for Respondent Nos.1/1 and 1/3. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 13, 2008. : FEBRUARY 13, 2008. : FEBRUARY 13, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the Appellant. The Appellant is the original plaintiff. The Appellant filed a suit for possession against the Respondents on the ground of title. The case of the Appellant-plaintiff was that he parted with possession of the suit property in favour of the original defendant on the basis of a money lending transaction. The defence of the original defendant was that he has been put in possession on the basis of the receipt/agreement for sale dated 19th December 1971 at Exh.76. The trial court decreed the suit. The Appellate court has interfered by holding that the said receipt/agreement was binding on the Appellant-plaintiff and therefore, the original defendant was entitled to protect his possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act,1882. 2. The submission of the learned Advocate for the Appellant -2- is that in the plaint there was a reference to the said receipt but inadvertently the year of the receipt was mentioned as 1974 instead of 1971. He submitted that in the plaint there are material averments as regards the said receipt which show that the transaction was essentially a money lending transaction. He, therefore, submitted that this was not a case for granting protection under section 53-A under the said Act of 1882. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The courts below and especially the Appellate Court found that the Appellant denied his signature on the said receipt/agreement at Exh.76. When he confronted with his signature on Vakalatnama and other admitted documents, he went to the extent of denying his signatures on the said documents. That is the reason why the Appellate Court held that the Appellant has suppressed the execution of the receipt dated 19th December 1971 in the plaint. 4. Considering the recitals in the said document at Exh.76, a the finding of fact has been recorded that the original defendant was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. There is no error in the said finding as regards the entitlement of the original defendant to the protection under section 53-A of the said Act of 1882. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no -3- order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE