1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.214/2006 Wasudeo s/o Ramaji Dhakate ...Versus... Kewalram s/o Kashiram Dane and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. [Shri N.N. Thengre, Adv. for appellant] [Shri N.W. Nawab, Adv. for respdt. No.1] [S/Shri E.W. Nawab, M.S. Hussain, Adv. for respdt. No.2 (e)] [Shri S.I. Ali, Adv. for respdt. No.5] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 24.03.2011. Learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal argued that the property under the sale-deed dated 26.2.1986 in favour of Wasudeo was not proved to be a joint family property and the Courts below went wrong in putting that burden of proof on the appellant. He further argued that in the plaint there was no challenge to the said sale-deed dated 26.2.1986 and in the absence of challenge to the sale-deed, the Courts below could not have issued a declaration that the said sale-deed was null and void. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and upon reading of the judgments of the Courts below, it is seen that on the pleadings and 2 documentary evidence, the Courts below have come to a conclusion that the property was joint family property though the sale-deed dated 26.2.1986 was in the name of Wasudeo alone. A further finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of oral evidence also to the same effect, rejecting the defence that the partition has already taken place in the year 1964, as contended by defendant No.1  Wasudeo. Not only that the Courts below have examined documents (Exh.115 to Exh. 117) and have come to a conclusion that there was no possibility that the property was self acquired property of Wasudeo. That being a finding of fact, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the same. In so far as the submission regarding challenge to the sale-deed dated 26.2.1986 is concerned, I find that it is not necessary to pray for setting aside the sale-deed when the property under the said sale-deed has been found to be a joint family property and not the exclusive property or self acquired property of Wasudeo. The said sale-deed is not binding on the plaintiff in view of the fact that the property under the said sale-deed has been found to be a joint family property. At any rate, reading of the operative decree shows that the trial Court has declared the 3 said sale-deed null and void to the extent of plaintiff's share only and therefore, it has taken proper care to guard the interest of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in whose name the sale-deed dated 26.2.1986 was made. For these reasons, therefore, no substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw