1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 394/2008 (Maimuna Begum through L.Rs.Vs. State of Mah. & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mrs. A.P. Shinde, Adv. for the appellants. Mr. C.N. Adgokar, A.G.P. for R-1. Mr. R.A. Gupte, Adv. for R-4. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 27 th JANUARY, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for grant of a decree of return of seized property, gold ornaments and cash worth Rs. 80,000/- or damages to the tune of Rs. 1,58,600/-. It was the case of the plaintiff that on 19/1/1977, the defendant nos. 4, 5 and 6 came to her house, searched the same and forcibly took keys of the boxes and almirah from the plaintiff, after telling her that they had a warrant against her husband and that he would be detained in MISA or a criminal case under Section 406 of the Penal Code. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants seized cash worth Rs. 80,000/- kept in one box along with gold ornaments valued at Rs. 34,000/- 2 and certain other ornaments, combined value of all of them being Rs. 78,600/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 4 to 6 took away the aforesaid property from the plaintiff without giving an acknowledgment in regard to the same. It was pleaded that though the defendant nos. 4 to 6 prepared a seizure panchnama, the copies of the same were not given to the plaintiff. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and further denied that the defendant nos. 4, 5 and 6 took away the cash and gold ornaments as pleaded by the plaintiff by way of seizure. It was specifically pleaded in the written statement that the plea about taking away of the cash and gold ornaments was totally false. It was pleaded that the search was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses and only two seizure panchnamas were recorded and the copies thereof were handed over to the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the seizure panchnama on which the plaintiff relied, was false, bogus and fabricated. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant nos. 4 to 6, illegally, informed the plaintiff that they had an arrest warrant against her husband and that he would be detained in MISA and, therefore, forcibly took the 3 big box, from the almirah belonging to her. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that during the search, the defendant nos. 4 to 6 seized cash worth Rs. 80,000/- and gold ornaments worth Rs. 78600/-. Having answered these issues against the plaintiff, the trial Court held that the defendants could not be made liable to return the cash and ornaments to the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. In an appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the trial Court, the first appellate Court confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court on 6/5/2000, by dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellants took this Court through the evidence of the witnesses and the reasons recorded by the trial and the first appellate Courts, while dismissing the case of the plaintiff. It is the case of the appellants that both the Courts have not considered the relevant evidence on record and have recorded a finding against the plaintiff by mis-appreciating the evidence tendered on record. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law and hence the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4 I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the judgment passed by the trial and the first appellate Courts. Both the Courts considered the evidence in detail to find that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving her case. Merely because the Courts have not appreciated the evidence in the manner as desired by the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the judgments passed by the trial and the appellate Courts could be interfered with, in a second appeal. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited and this Court cannot appreciate the evidence for the third time, as a second appeal can be admitted and entertained only on a substantial question of law. Since no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP