1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. S.A.NO.301 of 2008 Vitthal Motiram Jagtap .. .vs.. Sau.Chandrabhaga Savant and ors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's order. orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 4th August 2009. 1. Heard Mr.A.S.Mardikar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.C.A.Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal is preferred against the two concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below. 3. Respondent no.1 – plaintiff had instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property alleging the same to be ancestral. It is her contention that the property belonged to one Shankar who had left behind him two wives, two sons and a daughter. She claims to be the daughter of Jagdeo s/o Shankar. It is her contention that the entire 2 property belonged to Shankar and Jagdeo had share in it, which was devolved upon her. The defendant/appellant had resisted the suit and had contended that the entire property was not joint family property and some property was given to defendant no.1 by second wife of Shankar by name Anusayabai to him by gift or surrender deed. 4. The trial court found that defendant no.1 had failed to prove that the said property was given to him exclusively by Anusayabai and entire property was joint family property and plaintiff had 4/9th share in the suit property. This decree was challenged by defendant no.1 in the district court. The said appeal came to be dismissed and the District Judge confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the finding recorded by the courts below with regard to the surrender and gift was not proper. He submits that after the said gift was made, the entry thereof was taken in the revenue record and that is enough to show that there was a gift in favour of appellant/defendant no.1. The submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the gift requires registration as well as attestation and oral gift is not valid. The courts below have considered this aspect. Even 3 assuming that there was a surrender, the said surrender-deed is also required to be registered. There can not be oral surrender of immoveable property and in view of this, I find that the courts below did not err in holding that there was neither surrender nor gift in favour of defendant no.1. There is no perversity in appreciation of the evidence. The shares have been rightly carved out. No substantial question of law is involved. There is no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute