1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 122/2010 (B.L. Yadav VERSUS Manish Satyanarayan Mehadia & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.M. Ghare, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 1, 2010 . Heard. The apellant is the original defendant no.1. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was the owner of the suit property which comprised of two plots bearing Plot Nos.18 and 19 and the defendants be restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the property was owned by one Veena Badwar and after the death of Veena, her sons viz. Rushi and Pranay had executed a sale-deed dated 30.12.1998, registered on 13.04.1999, in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded possession over the suit property. The property was mutated in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue record but, the defendant nos.1 to 3 had tried to illegally dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. 2 The defendant no.1, the present appellant filed the written statement,stating therein that the husband of Veena by name Satinder and his two sons Rushi and Pranay had executed a registered Power of Attorney in his favour on 01.06.2000 and as per the terms in the said power of attorney, he entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property in favour of his wife Smt. Saroj Yadav. It was the case of the defendant no.1 that the sale-deeds executed by Pranay and Rushi in favour of the plaintiff were bogus documents. All the defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that he was the owner and possessor of the suit property by virtue of sale-deed dated 30.12.1998, which was registered on 13.04.1999. The Courts held that the defendants were illegally trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. The Courts then held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant nos.2 and 3 did not challenge the judgments passed by the trial Court in an appeal. Only the defendant no.1, the present appellant, challenged the same in the first appeal, but the first appeal was also dismissed by the first appellate Court and the judgment passed by the trial Court was confirmed. 3 The findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law as on an appreciation of the evidence on record, it is held by both the Courts that the plaintiff proved his ownership over the suit property in view of the registered sale- deed dated 13.04.1999. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that since after the death of Veena, her husband Satinder and her sons Rushi and Pranay, became the owners of the property, the plaintiff cannot claim ownership over the suit property as the sale-deed was executed in his favour only by Rushi and Pranay Badwar, is liable to be rejected as Satinder, the husband of Veena Badwar, had filed a suit against the plaintiff for declaration that the sale-deed executed in his favour by his sons Rushi and Pranay were illegal and not binding on him but, the said suit was dismissed by the Courts. This plea was also not available to the defendant no.1- appellant as the suit property was sold in the year 1998-99 and the defendant no.1 claimed on the basis of a registered power of attorney, which was executed in his favour in the year 2000, after execution of the sale-deeds in favour of the plaintiff. 4 Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE