1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 69/2007 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. CORAM : Smt. V. A. Naik, J. DATED : 12 th June, 2007. Heard Shri Sohoni for the appellant, and Shri Joshi for the respondent no.1. The appellant is the original defendant no. 1. A suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff is the adopted son of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 is the second wife, and the defendant no.3 is the first wife, of the defendant no.1. The plaintiff was adopted on 22/3/1983. He claimed partition and separate possession of the suit property. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was the case of the defendants that the plaintiff was not entitled to seek partition and separate possession of the suit fields as the suit fields were already gifted by the defendant no.1 to defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the year 1957 and 1976, i.e. much prior to his adoption in the year 1983. The defendant no.1 pleaded that the field Survey No. 2 238 was not the ancestral property and was the self acquired property of the defendant no.1. The defendants, however, admitted that the field Survey No. 206 was the ancestral property. The trial and the appellate Courts concurrently held that Field Survey No. 238 was also the ancestral property in the hands of the defendant no.1. The Courts then held that the gift deeds allegedly executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 were not valid documents as they were neither produced on record nor proved by the defendants. In the absence of any proof of the gift of the suit properties by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant nos.2 and 3, the plaintiff was entitled for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit properties. The Courts consequently decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The findings recorded by both the Courts are the pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record to arrive at the aforesaid findings. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP