1 S.A.No. 869.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 869 OF 2009 Priabai W/o Moglaji Gogde, and another ... Appellants V E R S U S Mallu S/o Piraji Borod and others ... Respondents ... Mr. A.G.Godhamgaonkar,Advocate for Appellants Mr. M.D.Godhamgaonkar,Advocate for Respondent no.1 Mr. U.B.Bilolikar,Advocate for Respondent no.3 ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 11th JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT 1] This appeal is challenging concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The appellants and respondent no.4 filed suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 210 of 1988 for declaration of ownership and possession in respect of the house at village Kasrali, Ta. Biloli, District Nanded against the respondent nos. 1 to 3. The respondent no. 3 happens to be the husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellant no.2. 2 S.A.No. 869.09 2. The case of the plaintiffs was as follows : The respondent no. 4 purchased the suit house in the year 1967 and took possession of the same. He started using it as his residence along with appellants. The respondent no. 4 got affected due to “black magic” and not only became blind but his mental ability was also affected. He left the village only to come to back in 1988. While he was away the appellants were dispossessed by the respondent nos 1 to 3. [Admittedly, the respondent no.4 did not possess the document of title. He simply stated that the original owner namely one Moglaji Sayanna sold the house to him through un- registered document, which he did not possess when the suit was filed.] However, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 pleaded a specific case that Mogalji Sayanna sold the suit house to respondent no.4 as well as to respondent no.1, who was his brother- in-law in 1967, vide an unregistered document. They admitted that the respondent no.4 and the appellants possessed 1/2 portion of the suit house. They then brought on record that the respondent no. 4 in the year 1983 sold his portion 3 S.A.No. 869.09 of the suit house to one Shamrao, who subsequently sold it to Piraji who is not a party to the suit. The Courts below accepted the defence and dismissed the suit. 3] The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants asserted that if the document of 1967 was brought on record by the respondent nos 1 to 3 (Defendants), same can be used for co-lateral purpose only to show the nature of the claimed possession by the appellants. Indeed, this was possible and the Courts below accepted this part of the case and held that the appellants were occupying the suit house, but only to the extent of 1/2 portion. The question is whether the appellants and the respondent no.4 had possession over the suit house only to the extent of half share? The answer has to be in the affirmative because the respondents could prove that the respondent no.4 had sold 1/2 portion of the suit house through a ‘registered document’ to one Shamrao. This document is on record at Exh.67 and is properly proved. 4 S.A.No. 869.09 4] In view of the correctness of findings on facts, there arise no substantial question of law in this appeal. The appeal should fail. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/