1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.158/2010 DHARMARAJ BHAGWAT PATEL ..VS.. DULICHAND DADUJI BISANE =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri .V.D. Muley, advocate for appellant C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 16th June, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 6.5.1998 was void and not binding on him as at the time of execution of the sale deed the plaintiff was in an intoxicated condition. Plaintiff pleaded that the defendant had not paid the consideration for the purchase of the suit property and the possession was also not parted with as stated in the sale deed. The defendant denied case of the plaintiff and pleaded that the property was not the joint property, there was a oral partition between the plaintiff and his father and the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff and the mutation entry to that effect was also recorded. 2 The defendant pleaded that the entire consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid to the plaintiff and the name of the defendant was entered into the revenue records after issuing notice to the plaintiff. According to the defendants plaintiff in collusion with his brother and mother had mischievously filed R.C.S.58/1998 for partition and separate possession. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, both the courts held that the plaintiff did not succeed in proving that the sale deed was got executed by the defendant from the plaintiff on 5.6.1998 when the plaintiff was under the influence of the liquor. The courts held that the sale deed was executed with free consent and on receiving a total consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-. Therefore, the courts held that suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of fact, based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. In this case, it is necessary to note that the plaintiff failed to enter into the witness box to prove that any consideration was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff towards the purchase of the suit property and that the defendant had got the sale deed executed from the plaintiff when the plaintiff was under the influence of the liquor. The courts rightly held that it 3 was necessary for the plaintiff to enter into the witness box to prove his case. The courts have considered the evidence tendered by the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant to record the findings. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of fact, based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP