1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 435/2010 (Arun Bhagwan Kaware VERSUS Sunil Govardhan Shelare) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.H. Qazi, counsel for the appellant. Shri Lokesh Sakhare, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 22 , 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He had filed a suit against the defendant for possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, one Damodar was the owner of the suit house. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that after the death of Damodar in the year 1989, Shantabai, his wife, became the owner of the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff that Shantabai purchased the suit property by a registered sale-deed dated 21.05.1995. It was the case of the plaintiff that the possession of the defendant over the suit property, which comprises of a first floor of house No.74/A was illegal. 2 The defendant filed the written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the property was initially owned by Dhondba. It was pleaded that Damodar was the son of Dhondba and when Damodar was young, the property was purchased by Dhondba in the name of Damodar. According to the defendant, the defendant came in possession of the suit property with the permission and consent of Dhondba. The defendant denied the execution of the sale-deed by Shantabai in favour of the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the defendant that Shantabai could not have been the owner of the suit property as till his death, Damodar had not married and had died a bachelor. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial and the first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that he was the owner of the suit property and that the defendant had encroached upon the suit property. The Courts then held that the defendant had succeeded in proving that the suit was vexatious and the defendant was entitled to compensatory costs. The defendant succeeded in proving that he was in possession of the suit property, and the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought by him. 3 The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. By considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, both the Courts held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that Shantabai was the wife of Damodar. The Courts rightly held on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record that Shantabai had no authority to execute the sale- deed in favour of the plaintiff and that she was not the wife of Damodar. The Courts held that even otherwise, the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving the sale-deed executed by Shantabai in his favour on 21.05.1995. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE