IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.377 OF 2004. APPEAL NO.377 OF 2004. APPEAL NO.377 OF 2004. Sukhdeo Ganpat Mane & Ors. ...Appellants. Versus. Sau.Sushilabai Sukhadeo Mane ...Respondent. Shri M.A.Choudhari for the Appellants. Shri S.S.Jinsiwale for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 05th February, 2008. : 05th February, 2008. : 05th February, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard advocate appearing for the appellants. The first respondent-plaintiff is the wife of the first appellant. The first respondent filed a civil suit against the appellants in respect of certain properties which were purchased by the first respondent in execution of decree for maintenance passed in favour of the first respondent. The suit for possession was filed by the first respondent. The said suit has ben decreed in respect of properties mentioned in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of paragraph No.1 of the plaint. The decree passed by the trial Court has been confirmed in appeal. 2. A contention was raised by the appellants that subsequent to the acquisition of the suit properties there was a surrender by the first respondent in favour of the appellants. Reliance was placed on application at Exhibit 75 and affidavit at Exhibit 76 of the respondent filed before the revenue authorities which : 2 : 2 : 2 : according to the appellants shows the surrender. The plea of surrender has not been accepted by the courts below on the ground of alleged relinquishment or surrender is in respect of a property having market value of more than Rs.100/- and therefore the same could have been made only by a registered document in writing. 3. The learned advocate for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this in the case of Hirabai Ingle Vs. Babu M. Ingle (1980 Maharashtra Law Journal Page 494). He placed reliance on paragraph No.12 of the said decision and submitted that in case of Hindus even oral surrender or relinquishment of right, title or interest of a member of a joint family has been recognised by law. He submitted that the property was purchased by the first respondent in auction with the object of saving the family property. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The decision in the case of Hirabai Ingle (supra) will have no application as in this case we are not dealing with surrender of a right, title or interest by a member of a Hindu Joint Family. This is not a case where the law laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision can be applied. In this case, the first respondent has purchased the suit property in auction : 3 : 3 : 3 : conducted by a Civil Court. Admittedly, there is no registered document executed by the first respondent recording surrender in favour of the appellants. Therefore, the courts below were right in holding that the first respondent was entitled to possession of the property described in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of paragraph No.1 of the plaint. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. 5. In view of the aforesaid order, Civil Application No.1418 of 2005 does not survive and the same is rejected. Judge. Judge. Judge.