1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2010 Chandrakant s/o Hariba Jadhav .. APPELLANT VERSUS Shivkanya w/o Gopikishan Soni .. RESPONDENT Mr. A.B. Tele, Advocate for the appellant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2010 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Respondent / original plaintiff instituted suit claiming decree of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of a plot admeasuring 30 ft. X 40 ft. It is contended by plaintiff that the property has been purchased by her from defendant by securing registered sale-deed on 5-2-1996. Defendant is trying to cause interference in her possession and as such, plaintiff was constrained to approach the court. 2 3 Defendant appeared and resisted the claim by filing written statement. According to the defendant, before execution of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, there was partition between him and his wife and son and, the suit plot has been allotted to the wife of defendant. It is stated that there was litigation being Regular Civil Suit no. 795/2000 between the defendant and his wife wherein the factum of partition has been taken note of and a decree on the basis of the aforesaid contention has been passed. 4 Obviously, plaintiff was not party to the earlier litigation. It is to be noted that defendant himself alienated the property by executing sale- deed on 5-2-1996. However, he has raised dishonest plea that before execution of the sale-deed by him, the property was allotted to his wife. Trial court has properly considered the contentions raised by the respective parties as well as the relevant evidence placed on record. Trial court granted decree in favour of the plaintiff which has been confirmed by the first appellate court. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence placed on record have recorded finding in favour of plaintiff / respondent herein which need not be disturbed while exercising jurisdiction under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed 3 summarily. 5 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa124.10.odt