1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.277/2010 RAMA SADASHIV PATIL & ORS ..VS..RAGHOBA GANGARAMJI BAWANE & ORS Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 22nd June, 2010. Heard Shri C.N.Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Bhide, the learned counsel for the respondents. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by respondent no.1/ plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/ appellants from disturbing the peaceful possession over the suit property. According to the plaintiff the property initially belonged to one Bisan Patil. His wife Annapurnabai had sold the said property to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 22.3.1996. Since the defendants were disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, the suit was instituted. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff by filing the written statement. They claimed that these were two brothers – of Bisan by names, Rama and Kisan. Rama and Kisan were the defendants in the suit. It was the case of the defendants that Bulabai was the legally married wedded wife of Bisan and Annapurnabai was merely staying in their house during the lifetime of Bulabai for food and shelter and after the death of Bulabai in the year 1969 she resided in the house of Bisan Patil as a maidservant. The defendants 2 pleaded that they were the legal heirs of Bisan Patil and were entitled to the suit property after his death in the year 1987. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial as well as the first appellate court on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record held that there was enough evidence to hold that Annapurnabai was the wife of Bisan Patil and therefore she became owner of the suit property after his death in the year 1987. The courts held that the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property as he purchased the same from Annapurnabai by a registered sale deed dated 22.3.1996. Both the courts held that the defendants failed to prove that the suit property was the joint family property of the defendants and that the defendants were also entitled to a share in the property. It was held that the sale deed dated 22.3.1996 was proved by the plaintiff and the same was not hit by the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts and the approach of the courts in considering the evidence on record is extremely just and proper. Though the issues whether Annapurna was the wife of Bisan Patil was not specifically framed by the courts, the courts had framed the issue about the plaintiff’s ownership and possession over the suit property in pursuance of the sale deed dated 22.3.1996 and while deciding that issue the courts held that Annapurna was the wife of Bisan. The courts considered the fact that Rama had filed Regular Civil Suit No.124/1988 for declaration, permanent injunction and possession against Annapurnabai, but the same was dismissed in default and Rama never made any attempt to restore the same. The courts rightly held that the defendants had not succeeded in proving that the suit field sold by Annapurnabai to the plaintiff was a fragment and since the 3 suit field admeasured 0.81 H.R. the courts held that there was no breach of any provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. 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 SMP