Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff appellant filed a Second Appeal in the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, which also affirmed the judgment of the appellate companyrt.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and examined the judgment under appeal as well as the judgment of the appellate companyrt and the trial Court.
NON REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO 3039 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
The plaintiff appellant, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the High Court in the Second Appeal, has filed a Special Leave Petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
The plaintiff appellant instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the suit land on the basis of a sale deed dated 13th of July, 1992 executed by the defendant respondent in his favour.
After having examined the judgment of the High Court, judgments of the companyrts below and other materials including oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of the view that while affirming the findings of the appellate companyrt on the question whether the transaction was a loan in substance or an out and out sale, the High Court had failed to numberice the material evidence on record.
15481 of 2005 TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Leave granted.
The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of agricultural land as fully described in the plaint hereinafter referred to as the suit land is the appellant before us.
