1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 326/2010 (Rukhminibai Raghunath Haware VERSUS Kankuli Pandurang Dutonde & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S. Kilor, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.V. Bhide and Shri S.Y. Deopujari, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 22, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original defendant no.2. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit property as she had purchased the same from the defendant no.1 by a registered sale-deed dated 17.07.1995. The plaintiff pleaded that the possession of the suit field was handed to her by the defendant no.1 on 17.07.1995 but, thereafter it was forcibly taken back in the year 1996. The defendant no.2 was not a party to the suit initially and the defendant no.1, who is the husband of defendant no.2 filed a written statement and pleaded therein that he had a love affair with the plaintiff and since the plaintiff was in need of money for starting some business, he 2 had executed the sale-deed dated 17.07.1995 in favour of the plaintiff, just with a view to help her to obtain a loan from the bank. According to the defendant no.1, the sale-deed was not to be acted upon. It was also pleaded by the defendant no.1 that the suit property was gifted by him to his wife by a registered gift deed dated 07.02.1985 and he had no right to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. After the aforesaid written statement was filed, the plaintiff joined the wife of the defendant no.1 as defendant no.2 to the suit. The plaintiff also consequentially amended the plaint to raise a challenge to the gift-deed dated 07.02.1985 as according to her it was a bogus and sham document. Both the defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial as well as the first appellate Court, on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, held that the defendant nos.1 and 2 had not succeeded in proving that the property was gifted by the defendant no.1 to the defendant no.2 by the registered gift-deed dated 07.02.1985. It is conspicuous to note that the registered gift-deed was not produced on record and only a certified copy of the extract of index register was produced on record to prove the gift-deed. The extract of index register showed that the gift-deed was 3 executed for an amount of Rs.3,000/-. The trial and the first appellate Court held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving her ownership over the suit property in pursuance of the registered sale-deed dated 17.07.1995 as the gift-deed dated 07.02.1985 was not valid and was also not proved by the defendant nos.1 and 2. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE