1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 318/2008 (Ambubai wd/o Sitaram Chokhare & others VERSUS Gajanan Krishnarao Deshmukh) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mrs. Thakare, counsel for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 11, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by plaintiff Krishnarao for a declaration of his ownership over field survey no.39 admeasuring 1.56 HR. He further sought permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from receiving the amount of Rs.19,500/- which was deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer towards the acquisition of field survey no.39 admeasuring 1.56 HR towards compensation. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the owner of field survey no.39 and earlier the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajura had passed an order for disbursing the award amount of Rs.19,500/- in favour of the plaintiff but, later on, the order was modified and the Sub Divisional Officer held that the 2 defendants were entitled to receive the compensation amount. In view of the aforesaid order, the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his ownership and permanent injunction. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that they were the owners of the property having purchased the same by a registered sale-deed dated 18.06.1980. According to the defendants, they had purchased field survey no.39 from one Bhaskar and Vishwanath for a consideration of Rs.3,500/-. They, therefore, sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court, after appreciating, the material evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was the owner of field survey no.39 as the defendants succeeded in proving their title to field survey no.39 in view of the sale-deed dated 18.06.1980. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. In an appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment passed by the trial Court, the findings recorded by the trial Court were reversed and it was held by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving 3 his ownership over field survey no.39 and the defendants had failed to prove their ownership over the same. The judgment passed by the first appellate Court is challenged in the instant appeal. I have perused both the judgments in detail. The alleged sale-deed dated 18.06.1980 is held to be 'not proved' by the first appellate Court as the same is not exhibited and is marked as Article 'A'. According to the first appellate Court, the sale-deed was not proved by the defendants before the trial Court. The first appellate Court held that the defendants failed to prove the ownership of their predecessors-in-title i.e. Bhaskar and Vishwanath. The first appellate Court then held that the entire revenue record prior to the acquisition of the land showed that the suit land was recorded in the name of the plaintiff. Nothing was placed before the Court or before the revenue authorities to show that Bhaskar and Vishwanath were the owners of the property and were competent to execute the sale- deed in favour of the defendants. In fact the first appellate Court held that the alleged sale-deed dated 18.06.1980 was prepared by the defendants with the help of the cousin brother and nephew of the plaintiff to deprive the 4 plaintiff from receiving the compensation amount. The first appellate Court rightly held that the defendants had allegedly purchased the suit field on 18.06.1980 when the acquisition proceedings were in progress and in view of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, the transfer of the property which was sought to be acquired was prohibited and was illegal. The findings recorded by the first appellate Court are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE