sa220.09.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 220/2009 Rajan Rangaswami Reddy ..vs.. Vyankatesh Shriniwas Reddy & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Amol Mardikar, Advocate for appellant. Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : February 3, 2010 1. Heard Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 14/1993 for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering the possession of the appellants over the suit property. The suit property consists of plot no. 52 situated at Panharkawda. The claim in the suit was that one Dr.Parthasarthi was the owner of the suit property and by executing gift deed dated 17.03.1951, plot no. 52 was gifted to one Shriniwas Reddy, the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs claim to have derived title to plot no. 52 on the basis of Will dated 16.04.1983, which is said to have been executed by the said Shriniwas Reddy. As against this, claim of the sa220.09.odt 2 defendants was that one Jagayya had sold the property to Munnaswami by sale deed dated 08.10.1973 and defendants derived their title from said Munnaswami. 3. The trial Court did not consider the issue of ownership and possession of plot no. 52 and recorded finding that the proceedings in earlier Special Civil Suit No. 6/1969 pertained to plot no. 88, which was the subject matter of gift dated 07.03.1951, which is said to have been executed by Dr. Parthasarthi. Further a finding is recorded that there was no reference to plot no. 52 in the said judgment. 4. The appellate Court recorded a finding that in Special Civil Suit No. 6/1969, although gift deed dated 07.03.1951 was considered, it did not pertain to plot no. 52. The appellate Court further recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have not produced on record even a single document to show that Dr. Parthasarthi was the owner of the plot no. 52. It has further recorded a finding that no such document was filed in Special Civil Suit No. 6/1969 and even till date no document was filed by appellant to show that Dr.Parthasarthi was owner of plot no. 52. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that gift deed dated 07.03.1951 is not placed on record of the Courts below. sa220.09.odt 3 5. Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that gift deed dated 05.03.1951 was proved in Special Civil Suit No. 6/1969 decided on 30.04.1971. According to him, this suit was filed by Munnaswami for partition against Shriniwas Rerddy, his brother, in which gift deed dated 05.03.1951 was proved. Hence, according to him, it will have to be presumed that the plaintiffs are owner of plot no.52 and have derived title from the gift deed dated 05.03.1951. Both the Courts below have considered this aspect and have recorded a finding that no document is produced on record to show that Dr. Parthasarthi was owner of plot no. 52 and that there was no reference to plot no. 52 in Special Civil Suit No. 6/1969. These findings are not shown to be perverse in any manner. In view of that, no substantial question of law arise out of judgment and orders passed by Courts below. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. J UDGE kahale