1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2002 1. Tajuddin S/o Mohd. Sahmshoddin Farooqui and others .. .. Appellants Versus 1. Kishanrao S/o Bhujangrao Jadhav since deceased through L.Rs. 1/1 Mangal W/o Kishan Jadhav and others .. .. Respondents Shri V. R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for the Appellants. Mrs. M. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 03RD DECEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 01. Heard Shri Sonwalkar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondents, who is opposing the admission of the second appeal filed by the appellants, who are the original plaintiffs. There are concurrent findings recorded against the appellants/plaintiffs dismissing claim in suit. The suit was filed for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of house property bearing Municipal House No. 157(old)-1-177(new) and House No. 158(old)-1-177/1 situated in Mandi Bazzar area, Ambajogai and further declaration that sale deed dated 28th November, 1973 in favour of defendant is abinitio void 2 and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs/appellants. 02. The property originally is belonging to one Mohd. Salahuddin who died on 22nd February, 1974. The suit property described in the impugned sale deed is the house property belonging to said Salahuddin. The plaintiffs relations with the deceased Salahuddin is not disputed. The present suit was filed in the year 1975 after the death of Salahuddin. His son Shamshoddin predeceased father Salahuddin and the present plaintiffs are the heirs of Shamshoddin. The relationship of plaintiffs with deceased Shamshoddin is not disputed. They are claiming through Salahuddin. According to the plaintiffs, the sale deed was sham, bogus document and was obtained by the defendants exercising undue influence and it was without consideration. 03. The concurrent findings recorded on these points are against the plaintiffs/appellants. I have gone through the impugned judgment and find that there is no perversity in the findings. So also no substantial question of law seems to be formulated. Since, the suit property has been validly transfered in the name of respondents/defendants, no interference is required in the impugned judgment. The second appeal is therefore, stands dismissed summarily at the stage of admission. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Dec. 09