1 S.A. 384/2009 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the appellant. ........................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 29/4/1998 in favour of the defendant be declared null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and for injunction. The said Suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred Appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment in the present Appeal. 3. Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the circumstances on record would show that the deceased Dagdu was not in a position to execute the sale deed on 29/4/1998 as he was seriously ailing and died on the same day. Even by the preponderance of 2 S.A. 384/2009 probabilities, it will have to be viewed that the deceased Dagdu could not have executed the sale deed on the said date. Even his signature does not appear on the sale deed. The father­in­law of the plaintiff and the present respondent in collusion with each other have got the sale deed executed. 4. I have gone through the Judgments delivered by both the Courts. 5. The oral evidence has been evaluated by both the Courts. It has come on record that the appellant for 8 – 10 days prior to the death of Dagdu, had left for her parental house. On the contrary, there is copy of complaint on record that on 20/4/1998 the father of Dagdu took Dagdu with them. This shows that the defendant was not with her husband at the time of his death. Further the record shows that D.W. 2, who had purchased the property along with Dagdu, had sold his property also along with the property of Dagdu. The Courts have considered the oral evidence on record. There is nothing to disbelieve the said evidence that the sale deed was executed by Dagdu for consideration. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 384.2009