1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.3/2010 Bhagwan Mahadeo Shende versus Nanibai w/o Parashram Shende ============================================================ Shri Manoj Kariya, advocate for appellants ============================================================ CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 26.4.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by Nanibai – the plaintiff for declaration of ownership over the suit property. The plaintiff also sought possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiff the property belonged to her husband Parashram and after his death she became the absolute owner of the suit property. 2] The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and denied that Parashram was the owner of the suit property. It was pleaded by the defendants that the suit property was purchased by Mahadeo, father of Parashram and the defendant no.1. It was also pleaded by the defendants that Parashram had executed a will making a bequest of the property in favour of defendant no.2 – Satish, son of Bhagwan / defendant no.1. It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff had married one Dashrath Dewadkar after her marriage with Parashram and hence under the Hindu Law she was not entitled to claim the property owned by Parashram. 3] The trial court as well as the appellate court ,on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving that the suit property was the ancestral property of Mahadeo and the same was given to her husband Parashram in a partition of the year 1983. The courts held that after Parashram died in 1988, the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property. 2 The courts then held that the defendants had failed to prove that the partition of the year 1983 was nominal. The courts also held that the defendants failed to prove that Parashram had made bequest of the said property in favour of Satish by a will dated 14.5.1988. The courts held that the defendants were taking two contrary pleas at a time. On one hand they were contending that Parashram was not the owner of the property and Mahadeo was the owner of the same and on the other they pleaded that Parashram had executed a will in favour of defendant no.2 in 1988. Both the courts held that the will dated 14.5.1988 was false and bogus. The courts decreed the suit of the plaintiff as both the courts held that there was absolutely no evidence on record to show that the plaintiff married with Dashrath Dewadkar after the death of Parashram and was staying with him. 4] The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The only submission made on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiff could not have claimed ownership of the property for Parashram in view of the provisions of Hindu Law as she had married Dashrath Dewadkar after the death of Parashram is liable to be rejected. Both the courts after proper appreciation of the evidence on record have held that there was absolutely no evidence tendered by the defendants to show that the plaintiffs married Dashrath Dewadkar after the death of Parashram. I have also perused the oral evidence of the defendant. It does not support the plea of remarriage of the plaintiff after the death of Parashram. 5] Since no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.