1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 284 OF 2009 Shivram Gangaram Mohite ........Appellant versus Mrs. Surekha Shivram Mohite & anr........ Respondents. Mr. S.S. Redij adv. for the Appellant None for the respondent CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The present appellant is the husband whereas the respondent no.1 is his wife who has sold the suit propety in favour of the respondent no.2. The suit property comprises of a plot of land purchased under a registered sale deed executed by the vendor in favour of the respondent no.1 and she claimes to have constructed a house over the plot. According to the appellant, he had invested money for purchasing the plot and construction of the house. However, out of love and affection the sale deed was executed in the name of his wife, respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 had sold the property in favour of respondent no.2 in the year 2003 and hence the appellant filed suit for setting aside the sale executed by the respondent no.1 in 2 favour of the responent no.2 and for declaration that he is the owner of the property, and relief of possession is also claimed. Lastly, a money claim is also made against the wife to the extend of the consideration received by her from the respondent no.2. It has come on record that the respondent no.1 wife in whose favour the sale deed is registered in the year 1985, was working as a teacher since much prior to the purchase of the property, and had a sourse of income. The respondent no.1 was working as a teacher since 1967 and was not depended financially on the appellant. It has also come on record that the appellant has performed a second marriage on 28-4-1985 whereas the property/plot was purchased on 5-8-1985. The appellant has children from the second marriage. The court below has held that if the appellant had married with other lady and was staying separately from the respsondent no.1, there was no reason for the appellant to purchase the property in the name of the respondent no.1. No oral evidence can out way the registered sale deed under which the respondent no.1 had purchased the said property. The court below has also observed that the plaint is silent in regard to the exact amount of payment of consideration so also the person to whom the said amount is paid. Taking over all view of the matter and probabilities, the court below has held that the appellant has failed to establish that he has alone spent money for purchase of the plot and construction of the house. To record this finding reliance is also 3 placed on the reply sent by the advocate for the appellant to a notice served by respondent no.1 and the said reply has been exhibited as Exh.23 wherein it is averred that the appellant as well contributed funds for the acquisition of the suit property. If this be the position the relief claimed by the plaintiff has been rightly denied by the court below as not grantable. 4. Perused the judgment. The same does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety warranting any interference. Appeal is thus dismissed and disposed of. 5. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, Civil Application does not survive and the same is also disposed of. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)