1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 193/2002 (Subhash Damodhar Boral VERSUS Smt.Indirabai w/o Madhavrao Sadegaonkar & others) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. Kadukar, Adv. h/for Shri Parchure Adv. for the applicant. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 5 th July, 2007. Heard Shri Kadukar, Advocate holding for Shri Parchure, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of the ownership of Nazool plot no.221 and possession of the suit property. The plaintiff also sought for the cancellation of the sale-deed dated 07.11.1985. One Draupadabai was initially the owner of plot no. 221 and according to the plaintiff, he had purchased 1800 Sq.Ft. of the suit property from Vasant and Rajesh, the sons of Draupadabai on 24.01.1989. 2 According to the plaintiff, 660 Sq.Ft. of the plot was gifted by late Draupadabai to the two brothers of the plaintiff viz. Babarao and Suresh in the year 1957. It was the plaintiff's case that the remaining site from the Nazool plot no.221 was purchased by the father of the plaintiff for a valuable consideration. It was pleaded that there was a partition between all the brothers and 660 Sq.Ft. of plot from plot no.221 fell to the share of the plaintiff in the partition. Similarly, 364 Sq.Ft. of plot which was purchased by the father of the plaintiff was also allotted to the plaintiff's share. Since the plaintiff had purchased 1800 Sq.Ft. of plot, he became the owner of the entire plot no.221 admeasuring 2824 Sq.Ft. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant no.1 had no right to execute a sale-deed in favour of defendant no.2 on 07.11.1985 and hence, he sought for the cancellation of the sale-deed dated 07.11.1985 which according to the plaintiff was null and void. 3 The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff and denied that the plaintiff was the owner of entire plot no.221. It was further denied that Draupadabai had gifted the plot to Babarao and Suresh in the year 1957. the defendants then denied that the defendant no.2 was in possession of the suit property only from 07.11.1985. It was pleaded by the defendant no.1 that she was a close relative of Draupadabai and Draupadabai had gifted the house of 2 Tasmas to the defendant no.1 vide registered gift deed dated 10.01.1957. The defendant no.2 also contested the suit filed by the plaintiff. On an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the parties on record, the trial Court held that Draupadabai had gifted 660 Sq.Ft. of property to Babarao and Suresh in the year 1957. The Court further held that the father of the plaintiff had also purchased 364 Sq.Ft. of property on 21.01.1957. The Court, however, held that the 4 plaintiff failed to prove that the property admeasuring 660 Sq.Ft. was allotted to the plaintiff's share in the family partition. It was also held that the plaintiff failed to prove that 364 Sq.Ft. of land purchased by the plaintiff's father was also allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The Court then held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had purchased 1800 Sq.Ft. of land from Nazool plot no. 221. The trial Court further held that the defendant no.1 had proved that Draupadabai had gifted some portion of the suit property in her favour on 10.01.1957. Lastly, it was held by the trial Court that the sale-deed dated 07.11.1985 was not null and void and was a valid sale. Consequently, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled for the declaration and possession of the suit property as prayed by him. The Court also held that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. The findings recorded by the trial Court 5 were upheld by the first appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The substantial questions of law stated in the memorandum of Second Appeal, in fact, cannot be said to be the substantial questions of law. Since the judgments do not give rise to any substantial questions of law, the Second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE