1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1761 OF 2005 Nana @ Raosaheb s/o Gulabrao More Appellant Versus Shivaji s/o Desai More and others Respondents ===== CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 9th October, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff challenging concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit no. 100/2001claiming declaration and injunction against the defendants. Plaintiff and defendant no. 2 are the real brothers whereas defendant no. 1 is the son of defendant no. 2. It is the contention of plaintiff that plot admeasuring 50 ft x 23 ft was purchased by plaintiff and defendant no. 2 on 4-3-1985 from one Nivruti Bhavanji Kale for consideration of Rs.15,000/- in the name 2 of defendant no. 1. Although the plot was purchased jointly by plaintiff and defendant no. 2 in the name of defendant no. 1, defendant nos. 1 and 2 with a view to deprive the plaintiff of his share in the property have alienated the same in favour of defendant no. 3. According to plaintiff, he has contributed for purchase of the plot and was also in possession of the property. Plaintiff as such claims declaratory relief as well as order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering his possession. 3 Contentions raised by plaintiff were controverted by defendants by filing written statement. Defendants denied that the property was purchased jointly by plaintiff and defendant no. 2. It is the contention of the defendants that the property was purchased in the name of defendant no. 1 and, plaintiff has not at all contributed for purchase of the property. It is the contention of defendants that plaintiff has no entitlement in relation to the suit plot and a such prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4 Trial court after recording evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his case and as such dismissed the suit. Appeal presented by plaintiff being Regular Civil 3 Appeal no 111/2003 came to be heard and disposed of by the District Judge, Parbhani who was pleased to dismiss the same. 5 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Both the courts below have recorded finding that plaintiff has failed to establish that he has contributed for purchase of suit plot. It is not the case of plaintiff that his brothers were joint or that they were in possession of the joint family property. It is also not the case of plaintiff that the suit property is purchased out of joint family funds. In this view of the matter, view adopted by the courts below appears to be reasonable and proper. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* dyb/sa1761.05.odt