1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.513 OF 2006. with CA NO.5571/2006. 1) Shajadbee w/o Huzursab & Anr. - APPELLANT VERSUS 1) Fatemabee w/o Shaikh Gabru and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SAG Qureshi, Adv. h/for Mr. RR Shaikh,Advocate for Appellants; Mr.Jayant Chitnis, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 1, 3 & 4. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23rd April, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The decree in favour of the plaintiffs, confirming the share of the plaintiffs vis-a-vis defendant no.1 or defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the agricultural property and also consideration of the sale-deeds by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhokar dated 1.10.2001, being so 2 confirmed by the learned III Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Nanded dated 23.11.2005, is debated by the defendants in the Second Appeal. 3) The short point, which according to Mr. Qureshi is, non-proving of the document of Hiba (Exhibit-40), having its adverse impact on the rights of the defendants, the matter warrants remand and hence, according to him, it could be projecting a substantial question of law. 4) Having gone through the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhokar and also of the first Appellate Court, I find that the legal position vis-a-vis Mohammedan Law is correctly discussed. The determination of rights of plaintiff was evaluated as the theory of legal necessity to sell the property, in which the plaintiff has share, could not he recognized and the assertion was contrary to the settled position of law. 5) The death of Hujursab in 1986 and the so-called donation by said Huzursaab in 1983 by virtue of oral gift or by Exhibit-40, is rightly dealt with by the Courts. The matter does not warrant to another round of litigation as it is wandering since 23rd March, 2000. Consequently, no substantial question of law involved in Second 3 Appeal. Second Appeal lacks merit, it is dismissed with CA. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/SA51306