1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 169 of 2009 [Sau. Tarabai Shalikram Shrirame Vs. Rambhau B. Tadurwar & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.R. Patil, Adv., for the appellant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 02nd May, 2009. 1. The appellant is unsuccessful defendant. Both the courts are against her. 2. Heard learned Adv. Mr. A.R. Patil for the appellant. Perused the judgments. 3. In the Appeal Memo, following questions are framed as Substantial Questions of Law:- 1] Whether the learned trial Court and learned Appellate Court have rightly considered the admission given by the plaintiff witness No.1, No.2, No.3 and 4 at Exh.29,34, 35 & 2 36 as per law and the decree and judgment passed without considering those admissions is sustainable in law? 2] Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and by the learned lower appellate Court are sustainable in law in view of the fact that though the plaintiff party to the suit available for placing his case before the Court remained absent and did not submit for cross-examination to the appellant/defendant? 3] Whether the evidence adduced by the power of attorney holder, daughter, i.e., respondent No. 1-C is sufficient to pass a decree in favour of plaintiff? 4] Whether the learned trial Court and lower appellate Court has rightly appreciated the entire documentary evidence as per law and whether the decree based on wrong interpretation of entries of Patta etc., is sustainable in law? 3 4. The question as to nature of title on which now submissions are advanced was not raised before the courts below. 5. The questions so styled as Substantial Questions of Law do not arise in the case. 6. In the circumstances, appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Judge |Hedau|