1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No.161 of 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. Heard counsel. 2. The suit (RCS No.425/2006) filed by Respondent for exemption simpliciter came to be decreed. His case before the trial Court was that he is owner of suit land bearing Gat No.121 to the extent of 1 hectare 20 Ares situated village Nirkheda on the basis of sale deed dated 22.4.1983 executed by original owner Surajdevi Porwal. He alienated l hectare 46 Ares land to the defendant Nos.1 and 3 and continued to remain in possession of the remaining land i.e. l hectare 20 Ares land as a owner which is suit land. According to the defendants, the Respondent (plaintiff) indulges in money lending business without license. They had agreed to purchase 13 acres 64 Ares land from said Surajdevi in the year 1983. They were having shortfall of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to pay the price amount. The defendant No.2 borrowed Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) from the plaintiff at that time and, therefore, the sale- deed was brought about in his name to the extent of 6 acres 26 Ares . They contended that it was a nominal sale deed without any intention to act thereupon. 3. The trial Court decreed the suit and the said decree is confirmed by the first appellate Court. 4. It is conspicuous that both the Courts have rendered findings of facts. No substantial question of law is involved inasmuch as the decree is simpliciter for injunction. If the appellants are entitled to claim ownership on the basis of allegation that the sale transaction was nominal, they are at liberty to file a separate suit. The only issue in context of suit simpliciter for injunction would be in respect of lawful possession of the plaintiff and, therefore, the question of title is only incidental. It is made clear that however, the question of title is not foreclosed. The Second Appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.09.11.2009. asp/office/sa161.09