Sharas Shaligram Patil vs Rajesh Suryanarayan Singu And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 9493 Bom

2023:BHC-AUG:19743
                                                                                   28-sa-420-2023.odt
                                                       (1)


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                       SECOND APPEAL NO.420 OF 2023
                                      WITH CA/9764/2023 IN SA/420/2023

                                        SHARAS SHALIGRAM PATIL
                                                   VERSUS
                                 RAJESH SURYANARAYAN SINGU AND ANR
                                                      ...
                             Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Prashant Prabhakar Giri
                              Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. N.S. Muthiyan
                                                      ...
                                                      CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 11, 2023

PER COURT:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for respondent no.1.

2. The respondent/original plaintiff has filed a suit for

declaration that the sale deed in favour of appellant/defendant no.2

was not binding upon him and it was illegal, sham and bogus. Both

Courts believed the plaintiff and decreed the suit and directed the

present appellant/defendant no.2 to deliver the possession to the

plaintiff within two months.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that both

respondents were in collusion and they had cheated the appellant.

He has paid the entire consideration by obtaining a loan from the

bank. The bank had taken the search from the office of the Sub-

Registrar. He had applied for calling the bank officers to prove that

28-sa-420-2023.odt

there was a search, but it was turned down. The appeal against the

said order was also dismissed. There was nothing on record to

disbelieve that the present appellant was the bonafide purchaser. He

has emphasized mainly on the ground that the issues were not

properly framed as per pleadings. Hence, the judgment has been

misdirected.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1/original plaintiff

would submit that there was no pleading that both respondents were

in collusion. Therefore, there was no question to frame the issue that

it was a collusive suit between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. The

entire aspects have been considered. The sale deed of present

respondent no.1 was before in time; hence, would prevail over the

subsequent transaction. The plaintiff was in possession but he was

dispossessed under the guise of illegal, sham and bogus sale deed.

5. Perused the impugned judgments and orders. The proper

issues based upon the pleading were framed. The defendant

no.2/present appellant failed to prove that the present respondents

have played a fraud with him. Both judgments and decrees appears

legal, proper and correct. In view of the facts in issue and the

findings recorded by both Courts, the Court does not find that

substantial question of law has been involved in the present case.

Hence, the appeal stands dismissed at admission stage.

28-sa-420-2023.odt

6. Civil Application No.9764 of 2023 stands disposed of.

(S.G. MEHARE, J.)

Mujaheed//