FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.103/2010 Sewakram Sakharam Samrit ..vs.. Sakharam Shioram Samrit & others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri O.W.Gupta, advocate for applicant C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 23RD MARCH, 2010. Heard Shri O.W. Gupta, learned advocate for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a partition and separate possession of his share in the suit properties. A declaration was also sought by the plaintiff that the sale deed executed by the defendant no.1, father of the plaintiff in favour of respondent no.15 and 16, on 3.6.1999 was void and illegal and not binding on him. Both the courts partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the first appellate court held that the plaintiff, the defendant no.1, his father and defendant no.6, the brother of the plaintiff had 1/3 share each in the suit properties except field survey no.225/B which was sold by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.15 and 16. Though the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in respect of all other properties which formed the suit property, both the courts failed to grant a declaration in regard to the sale deed dated 3.6.1999 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.15 and 16. The courts recorded a finding on an appreciation of the evidence on record, that the defendant no.1, the father of the plaintiff had sold the property to the defendant no.15 and 16 for legal necessity and therefore, it was not possible to grant a declaration to the plaintiff that the sale deed dated 3.6.1999 was void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff / appellant has challenged both the judgments only to the extent of rejection of the prayer of the plaintiff for the declaration in regard to the field. survey no. 225/B. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on appreciation of the judgments passed by the both the courts it appears that both the courts have recorded a categorical finding of fact that the field survey no.225/B admeasuring 96 R was sold by the defendant no.1 to the defendant no. 15 and 16 on 3.6.1999 for legal necessity and the plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration as sought by him. The finding recorded by both the courts in this regard is a pure finding of fact based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. It does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE SMP