1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 76 of 2009 Shri Ananda Tukaram Nevase Since deceased through his L.Rs. 1. Smt. Rakmabai Ananda Nevase & Ors. ... Appellants (Org. Plaintiffs Vs. Shri Sampat Maruti Nevase & Ors. ... Respondents (Org.Defendants) Shri V.C. Ghosalkar, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Dilip Bodake, Advocate, for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 22nd September, 2009. P.C. 1. This Appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs against the Judgment passed by the District Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.40 of 2004 whereby the Appeal was allowed and the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is set aside. 2. To state in brief, one Balu or Bala son of Thaku Bhujbal was the owner of certain properties, including the suit property. He had two wives, 2 namely, Sakhubai and Bhagubai. Bhagubai had one daughter named Salubai. The plaintiffs/the present appellants are the legal heirs of Salubai. Sakhubai had no children. Defendant No.1 Sampat is Sakhubai’s brother’s son. Defendant No. 2 is the wife and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of defendant No.1 Sampat. According to them, on 24.8.1979, Sakhubai executed a gift deed in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant No.1 Sampat. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.102 of 1991 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khandala, seeking declaration that the gift deed executed by Sakhubai is null and void on the ground that she had no right to make a gift of the property as the property would revert to the present plaintiffs as reversioners after her death. Secondly, it was contended that she was not physically and mentally fit to understand the nature of document which she was executing. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed possession of the suit properties situated at Village Naigaon from the defendants. 3. The defendants denied all the adverse allegations. They denied that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the property as reversioners and that Sakhubai was not competent to make gift or that she was not physically and mentally fit to execute the gift deed. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. That 3 judgment was challenged by the defendants in Regular Civil Appeal No.40 of 2004. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The first appellate Court has noted that even though the date of death of Bala Bhujbal is not given by the parties, from the record, it appears that after death of Bala Bhujbal, his property was divided between his two widows, namely, Bhagubai and Sakhubai. The record reveals that on 5.9.1947, Bhagubai had died and on her death, her 8 Anna share in the property of Bala was mutated in the name of her daughter Salubai as per Mutation Entry No.885. The first appellate Court noted that when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had come into force on 17.6.1956, Sakhubai had become the absolute owner of the suit property in view of the earlier partition. The plaintiffs succeeded the property of Bhagubai. The dispute is about the property which had come to Sakhubai in the partition after her husband’s death. In view of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, Sakhubai became absolute owner of the property, which had come to her share by inheritance before the Hindu Succession Act came into force. Therefore, she was competent to make a gift of the property. 4 The first appellate Court, considering the evidence led by the parties, came to conclusion that she was physically and mentally fit to make the gift though she was not keeping good health. It appears from the record that she was living with her brother and not with the plaintiffs. She was being looked after by her brother and brother’s son and in these circumstances, she made the gift of the property in favour of her brother’s son Sampat. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, there is nothing to show that the judgment rendered by the first appellate Court is perverse or per se wrong or against the record. No question of law is involved in the present Appeal. 8. Therefore,the Appeal stands dismissed. 9. As the Appeal is dismissed, Civil Application No.92 of 2009 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)