IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.282 OF 2009. (KANTABAI TUKARAM VAIDYA...VS... LAXMAN GAGHU IKHAR & OTH..) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Bhoyar h/f. Shri S.G. Jagtap, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. S.V. Purohit, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the properties belonged to her grandfather and Raghu and after the death of her grandfather her father, she was entitled to the share in the suit property. Since the defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff the suit was instituted. In the suit it was also pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant No.2 had obtained a relinquishment deed from the plaintiff by exercising fraud and by misrepresentation. According to the plaintiff, the relinquishment deed dated 07.06.1978 was not valid. 3. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 filed written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the defendants No.1 and 3 that the plaintiff and the other defendants to the suit i.e. defendants No.2, 3, 4 and 5 had executed a relinquishment deed on 07.06.1978 relinquishing their share in the suit property in favour of defendant No.1. Defendants No.1 and 3 pleaded that the relinquishment deed was duly registered and the plaintiff was not entitled to file a suit for partition and separate possession in view of the relinquishment of her share in the suit properties. 4. The other defendants supported the claim of the plaintiff and denied that the relinquishment deed was ever executed on 07.06.1978 by them or by the plaintiff. 5. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the relinquishment deed was obtained by defendant No.1 by practicing fraud on the plaintiff. The trial Court, therefore, held that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property. 6. The first appellate Court, however, reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court to hold that the relinquishment deed dated 07.06.1978 was not obtained by defendant No.1 by practicing fraud or misrepresentation. The first appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff and defendants No.2, 3, 4 and 5 had validly executed the relinquishment deed, relinquishing their share in the property in favour of defendant No.1. The First appellate Court relied on the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of defendant No.1 and specially the evidence of the witness to the relinquishment deed and the person from the Sub- Registrar's office to hold that the relinquishment deed was validly executed. The first appellate Court held that there was absence of cogent and reliable evidence on record to establish that defendant No.1 misrepresented the five executants in getting the document of relinquishment executed in his favour. The first appellate Court therefore, reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. The findings recorded by the first appellate Court are pure findings of facts based on proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. JUDGE RR.