3 IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 654 OF 2009 Kasturchand Bhagchand Kocheta .. Appellant V E R S U S Abhay S/o Paraschand Kocheta and others. .. Respondents .... Mr. S.B.Bhapkar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. V.S.Tanwade,Advocate for respondent No.1 .... CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2009,dated 10.07.2009 by the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court, Osmanabad, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Osmanabad in Regular Civil Suit No.337 of 2005,dated 27.4.2009. 3. The appellant is uncle of the respondent No.1. One Asarabai happened to be mother of the appellant 2 and grand mother of respondent No.1. Asarabai was owner of suit land. Earlier, Asarabai had executed partition deed, dividing her absolute property amongst appellant and others and the suit land went to the share of the appellant. Subsequently, Asarabai cancelled the partition deed and gifted the suit land by registered deed to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1, thereafter, filed suit for injuncting appellant from interfering in his possession etc. The trial Court held infavour of the appellant and dismissed the suit, mainly because the respondent No.1 could not prove his possession. But, the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court gave importance to the title of the respondent which appears from registered Gift Deed and certain entry in the revenue showing respondents possession also. The learned Judge of First Appellate Court held that appellant had no concern with the land. Indeed, reasons mentioned by learned Judge of the First Appellate Court while decreeing the suit are quite cogent and no interference is called for. The First Appellate Court as said above, not only held that respondent is absolute owner of the suit land but has also noted that respondent was put in possession. On the other hand, the claim of the appellant to the land is very feeble. It is not disputed that Asarabai is absolute owner of the property and the appellant has no concern to it. So, even though, Asarabadi had effected partition of her estate and agreed to put appellant in possession of 3 the suit land. It did not amount to transfer of property infavour of the appellant. Besides partition deed was not registered as Gift-deed. The partition deed, thus, did not transfer the title to the appellant. So Asarabai had choice of gifting the suit land to any other person and such person would get good title to the suit land. The appellant can not succeed in such contest, the appeal should fail, because there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Application No. 9744 of 2009 stands dismissed. ( A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/SA.654.09