1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 379/2010 (Vinayak Narayanrao Kulkarni & others VERSUS Mahadev Sukhdev Thakare) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri C.A. Joshi, counsel for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 28 , 2010 . Heard. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They had filed a suit for declaration that the alienation of the suit fields by their father Narayan in favour of defendant Mahadev was not binding on them. The plaintiffs claimed possession of the suit fields and in the alternative prayed for partition of the suit fields and separate possession of their share in the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the properties belonged to their grandfather Ganesh and Narayanrao had alienated the suit properties in favour of the defendant in the year 1964-65. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded that the properties were the exclusive properties of Narayanrao. The defendant denied that the plaintiffs were 2 the coparceners of the Hindu Joint Family and they had a right to challenge the alienation, specially after the prescribed period of limitation. The defendant pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was hopelessly barred by limitation. He also pleaded that the plaintiffs could not have filed a suit for partial partition of some of the properties. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the suit properties were alienated by Narayanrao to the defendant without legal necessity. The Courts held that the suit was not tenable as it was clearly barred by limitation. The Courts further held that the plaintiffs could not have filed a suit for partial partition of some of the properties. The Courts held that the defendant had succeeded in proving that the alienation of the suit property in the year 1964-65 was binding on the parties. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts. They are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. It is necessary to note that the properties were sold by Narayanrao in the year 1964-65 and the defendant was the owner of the properties and was in possession of the same since the time of execution of the sale- deed. The suit filed in the year 1996, for seeking the 3 aforesaid declaration and for seeking partition of the properties sold to the defendant, was hopelessly barred by limitation. The findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in AIR 1998 Kar.325 (Vadde Sanna Hulugappa Versus Vadde Sanna) and 1999-ALD-1-333 (Patamata Seshagiri Rao Versus Pamidimukkala Sree Ramachandra Rao) and relied on by the counsel for the appellants cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE