1 sa633-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.633 OF 2010 Pandurang Ragho Bhorde ..Appellant Vs Indumati Raghunath Shinde and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr.Deepak Patil, for appellant. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 18 th MARCH, 2011 P.C: Heard Mr.Deepak Patil, learned counsel for the appellant – original defendant no.1. 2] This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3 rd July, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Raigad-Alibag in Regular Civil Appeal No.93 of 2003 as also the judgment and decree dated 31 st March, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Pen in Regular Civil Suit No.134 of 197. By these judgments, the Courts below decreed the suit instituted by the respondent nos.1 to 5 original plaintiffs for declaration, injunction and possession. The Courts below declared that the respondent nos.1 to 5 (original plaintiffs) are the owners of the suit property and further declared that the sale deeds exhibits 47 and 48 executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent nos.6 and 7 / original defendant nos.2 and 3 are illegal and invalid. The Courts below held that respondent nos.1 2 sa633-10.sxw to 5 are entitled to possession of the suit property from the defendants and further directed the defendants to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the plaintiffs within three months from date of order. 3] In support of this appeal, Mr.Patil submitted that the Courts below committed serious error in decreeing the suit as the plaintiffs did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim that they are the owners of the suit property. As against this, the suit property stands in the name of the defendant no.1 pursuant to the order dated 8 th August, 1988 passed by the City Survey Officer. Mr.Patil further submitted that the respondent nos.1 to 5 (original plaintiffs) did not challenge this order. He, therefore, submitted that the Appeal deserves to be admitted. 4] I have considered the submissions of Mr.Patil. From perusal of paragraph no.16 of the Appellate Court’s judgment, it appears that on 30 th June, 1988, the appellant/defendant no.1 made an application at exhibit 51 informing City Survey Officer that Raghunath Shinde died on 1 st June, 1982 without leaving behind any heirs and legal representatives. In that application, defendant no.1 further requested that his name may be entered into the record of the suit property as heir of the deceased Raghunath and, accordingly, his name was entered by the City Survey Officer by order dated 8 th August, 1988. The learned District Judge also considered the admission given by the appellant/defendant no.1 in cross- examination that the wife and children are legal heirs of deceased Raghunath. As against this, the plaintiffs are heirs and legal 3 sa633-10.sxw representatives of deceased Raghunth and the evidence of plaintiff no.2 is supported by the Property Registration Card exhibit 50 which indicates that the property stood in the name of Raghunath who is husband of plaintiff no. 1 and father of plaintiff nos.2 to 5. That apart, in paragraph no.7 of the written statement, the defendant no.1 asserted that he has sold the suit property to the respondent nos.6 and 7 original defendant nos.2 and 3. 5] It is material to note that defendant nos.2 and 3 did not contest the suit and appeal. It is the case of the defendant no.1 that he sold the suit property to defendant nos.2 and 3. If that be so, the defendant no.1 has no subsisting interest in the suit property as he has conveyed his interest, if any, in favour of the respondent nos.2 and 3. Thus, on merits defendant no.1 has failed to establish his claim. In my opinion, he has no subsisting right, title and interest in the suit property. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of Appeal, Civil Application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]