ndm 1 4-sa.684.04 anr.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 684 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 778 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 684 OF 2004 Shriram Baburao Gupta. ... APPELLANT Vs. Krishna Ganpat Sutar. ... RESPONDENT -------------- Ms. Gaurai Godse for Appellant. Mr. Manoj T. Bhatt for Respondent. -------------- CORAM : C.L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 12 th JANUARY, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard. 2 This Second Appeal is preferred against the two concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below. The Appellant is the original Defendant. 3 The Plaintiff instituted a suit claiming a declaration that he is ndm 2 4-sa.684.04 anr.sxw in actual and lawful possession of the Municipal House No. 923, standing on Plot bearing Survey No. 15 of village Juhu, Vashi, taluka and district Thane. He also sought a declaration that the release deed said to have been executed in favour of the Defendant by the Plaintiff, was a sham and bogus document and was not binding on the Plaintiff – Respondent. 4 The Defendant contended that the said suit property was jointly purchased by the Plaintiff and Defendant and Plaintiff had infact executed a deed of release in favour of Defendant and Defendant has therefore become an exclusive owner of the entire property. 5 The learned Judge of the trial Court upon consideration of the the evidence found that the release deed said to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant was infact a sham and bogus document and he found that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the Municipal House No. 923. Holding so, he passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 6 The First Appellate Court also concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the Appellant mainly contended before me that the Court could not have granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff because the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of ndm 3 4-sa.684.04 anr.sxw Municipal House No. 923 as there was no partition between the plaintiff and defendant. She submits that since there was no partition, no declaration could have been given and no order for injunction could have been passed. 7 After having gone through the judgment of the Court below particularly of the trial Court, the trial Court in paragraph No.13 makes a reference to several documents and also makes a reference to the property being separately recorded in the name of the plaintiff and defendant in the record of Grampanchayat and thereafter, in the record of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The trial Court rightly observes that this could not have been done without there being application to that effect before those authorities. Such a finding cannot in any case or in any manner be said to be perverse. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court has also considered this aspect. Further, if the alleged release deed itself is set up, it would be obvious that the release deed is in respect of specific portion. There could be no release of the particular portion of the property in favour of another unless the property is properly described so in the released deed. The property seems to be completely described as belonging to the plaintiff. In the teeth of this document, it cannot lie in the mouth of the defendant to say that there was no division of the property at all. The Courts below have rightly considered the ndm 4 4-sa.684.04 anr.sxw evidence with regard to the division of the property and the findings cannot in any way be said to be perverse. These are all findings of facts, which cannot be gone into in the Second Appeal unless it is shown that they are perverse. As far as the finding that release deed being sham and bogus is concerned, that is also correct. There is infact no substantial question of law raised before the Court and no substantial question of law is infact involved. 8 In the circumstances, there is no substance in the Second Appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. 9 In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application does not survives and the same is also disposed of. [ C.L. PANGARKAR, J ]