JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Nikam, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Kolekar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. Mr. Nikam submitted that the following substantial questions of law are involved in the Second Appeal:

“A. Whether both the Ld. Lower courts were justified in not appreciating that the subject sale deed dated 09/04/2007 is null and void for non-payment of consideration amount?

B. Whether both the Ld. Lower courts were justified in holding the validity of the subject sale deed dated 09/04/2007 merely by holding that the execution of the same is proved?

C. Whether both the Ld. Lower courts were justified in assuming payment of consideration in respect of subject sale deed when the evidence of the Defendant clearly demonstrates otherwise?

D. Whether both the Ld. Lower courts were justified in appreciating and upholding the theory of permissive possession raised by the Defendant in absence of any specific and sufficient evidence to prove the same?”

3. The Appellant is original Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed suit simplicitor for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the Respondent/Defendant filed counterclaim seeking possession. It is the case of the A