1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 287/2010 (Radhabai Tikaram Bhure & another VERSUS Ganesh Madhukar Bhure & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Sudhir Malode, counsel for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 29, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The plaintiff no.2-Bhoirabai was the widow of one Tikaram and plaintiff no.1 is the daughter of Tikaram and Bhoirabai. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff no.2 Bhoirabai became the owner after the death of Tikaram. The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants were trying to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and, hence, the suit was filed. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiff and further denied that the plaintiffs were the owners of the 2 suit property. It was pleaded by the defendants that Bhoirabai was the owner of the suit property but, Bhoirabai had executed a registered gift-deed in favour of Madhukar on 16.01.1991. The defendant pleaded that defendant no.1- Madhukar became the absolute owner of the suit property in pursuance of the gift-deed dated 16.01.1991. Both the Courts, on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Tikaram was the real owner of the suit house and the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession of the suit property. The Courts held that the defendant no.1 Madhukar succeeded in proving that he became the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the gift-deed dated 16.01.1991. The Courts held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to declaration and perpetual injunction as sought by the plaintiff. The findings are based on the material evidence on record. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that the gift-deed dated 16.01.1991 was not property proved by the defendants is liable to be rejected as though Madhukar had expired during the pendency of the proceedings after tendering his evidence on affidavit, the defendant no.2, the widow of Madhukar and an attesting witness to the gift-deed was examined to prove the same. 3 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