JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "N.I. Act") vide judgment dated 26/07/2019 passed by the 12th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Special Court 138 N.I. Act), Nagpur, in S.C.C. No. 13705/2016. 2. It is stated that the impugned cheque was issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant/ complainant towards balance sale consideration for sale of 1/7th share of the appellant/ complainant in the property described below : "Ancestral property at Mouja Harpur, PH No. 39/A, CTS No. 539, Corporation House No. 3158 A/2, Ward No. 21, Khasra No. 32/2, Plot No. 2, admeasuring about 1500 sq. ft." 3. It is stated that the total consideration for his share was fixed at Rs.3,35,000/- and a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 06/04/2016 issued by the respondent was honoured, however, the impugned cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- dated 30/06/2016 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Nagpur, was dishonoured for the reason of STOP PAYMENT. 4. The trial Court recorded the evidence as adduced by both the parties and acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, mainly on the ground that the appellant/ complainant has failed to prove the existing legally recoverable debt against the respondent. 5. The impugned judgment of acquittal is challenged in this appeal. 6. I have heard Shri Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the record with their assistance. 7. At the outset, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that total consideration of Rs.17,00,000/- for the aforesaid property was paid to all the owners of Padole family and consequently the sale-deed (Exh. 35) dated 26/04/2016 came to be executed. However, thereafter the respondent came to know that for the aforesaid property the original owner Shri Chandrabhan Padole had already executed a 'Will' in favour of Rohit Padole and Nikhil Padole (grand sons of the original owner). On query being made to the learned counsel with regard to the knowledge of execution of said 'Will', the present appellant/ complainant could not point out his knowledge from the record. However, the appellant also does not dispute the execution of said 'Will'. On query being made to the learned counsel with regard to the knowledge of execution of said 'Will', the present appellant/ complainant could not point out his knowledge from the record. However, the appellant also does not dispute the execution of said 'Will'. This clearly indicates the appellant / complainant was not the owner of the aforesaid property on the date of issuance of impugned cheque. 8. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant/complainant has failed to prove the existence of legally recoverable debt against the respondent is correct and proper. Learned counsel for the respondent also brought to the notice of this Court about the filing of a Civil Suit for declaration against the members of the Padole family including the beneficiaries in the alleged Will. 9. In such circumstances, this Court do not find that any error or infirmity has been committed by the trial Court in acquitting the respondent, warranting any interference. Hence, Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.