1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 254/2008 (Mangala Sitaram Ingole VERSUS Sitaram Waman Ingole) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri V.G. Wankhede, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 11, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.126/1999, whereas Sitaram, the respondent, is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.226/1998. The appellant/plaintiff Mangala pleaded in the civil suit filed by her that she had advanced an amount of Rs.60,000/- to respondent Sitaram on 06.06.1995 and he had executed an Usanwar Chitthi to that effect agreeing to pay that amount to her on demand. Since Sitaram refused to pay the amount on demand, Regular Civil Suit No.126/1999 was filed by her. Defendant Sitaram denied the claim of the plaintiff and sought for the dismissal of the suit. He also instituted Regular Civil Suit No.226/1998 against Ghanshyam, Ramdas, 2 Bandu and appellant Mangala for declaration and permanent injunction restraining them from acting upon the so called Usanwar Chitthi dated 06.06.1995. A declaration was sought that the Usanwar Chitthi dated 06.06.1995 was a forged document. Both the Courts, after appreciating the material evidence on record, came to a conclusion that plaintiff Mangala had failed to prove that she had advanced an amount of Rs.60,000/- to Sitaram and he had executed an Usanwar Chitthi on 06.06.1995 in her favour. The Courts held that Sitaram succeeded in proving that the Usanwar Chitthi was a forged document. The first appellate Court held that Sitaram was entitled to declaration and injunction as prayed by him against Mangala. The Courts, therefore, dismissed the suit filed by Mangala and partly decreed the suit filed by Sitaram. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Both the Courts considered the fact that Mangala did not enter the witness box and though she examined one Gyanba as a Power of Attorney holder, he did not have personal knowledge about the transaction. 3 Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE