1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.846 OF 2009. Jalindar S/o Ginyandeo Saruk ... Appellant. Versus Vithal S/o Eknath Saruk and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.C.Patil, advocate for the appellant. Mr.K.K.Kulkarni, advocate for the Caveator - Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 07.12.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The appellant is original plaintiff. He had filed suit (RCS No.185/96) to set aside decree rendered in previous suit (RCS No. 187/1965) and declaration of ownership along with 2 perpetual injunction. The previous decree was allegedly a consent decree in injunction suit which ended in compromise between the defendant No.1 and father of the plaintiff. The case of the defendants was that defendant No.1 purchased the share of southern side adjoining to the land of the plaintiff's father with his consent, from one Dnyandeo. Thereafter father of the plaintiff had disturbed the possession and, therefore, injunction suit was filed which was compromised. The plaintiff's case was that the compromise decree in suit bearing (RCS No.187/1965) was out come of fraud played by the defendant No.1 on his father. The trial Court negatived the contentions of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. So also the first appellate Court held that there was no proof regarding fraud on father of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that both the Courts have rendered findings on facts. The contention raised in the appeal memo would show that the appellant (plaintiff) entertained suspicion regarding compromise decree because the suit (RCS No. 187/65) was filed and on the same day the parties had entered into the compromise. This can not be 3 a ground to entertain suspicion because it is of common knowledge that when parties decide outside the Court to bring about consent decree, then some times it does happen that on the very same day, the consent is given. There is no tangible evidence to infer fraud and the suit was merely on the basis of conjectures regarding fraud played on deceased father of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law is involved. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa84609