1 SA 88.2007 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2007 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.B.V.Wagh,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Halkude, Advocate for the resp.no.1 & 2. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20/04/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is defendants’ Second Appeal. The respondent no. 1/plaintiff had filed Suit for declaration of ownership and injunction in respect of the suit property. The trial Court decreed the Suit. The defendants preferred Appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The defendants have assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr. B.V.Wagh, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Courts below have not properly interpreted the document i.e. the tax receipt on record, which clearly establishes the 2 SA 88.2007 ownership of the present appellants. The present appellants had purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 18/12/1985 from its previous owner. The said property was purchased from Sk. Amir, who was the son of Fate Mohemmad, the original owner. It is not disputed that Fate Mohemmad was the original owner of the property. In spite of such over-whelming evidence, the Courts below have failed to consider the title of the present appellants. The learned counsel further contends that the Courts were mis- led on the surname. Even the husband of the plaintiff had filed affidavit on record by which it shows that the defendants are the owners. But, these aspects have not been considered. 3. Per contra, Mr. S.S.Halkude, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Courts have properly considered the evidence. There is no substantial question of law involved in the matter and the case is based purely on appreciation of evidence. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. The fact that Fate Mohemmad was the original owner of the property, is not disputed. 3 SA 88.2007 The whole controversy has arisen due to the confusion in the surname. The plaintiff also claim the title through the heirs of Fate Mohemmad Choudhari. Fate Mohemmad Choudhari was succeeded by Mainuddin, who is defendant no. 3 and said defendant no. 3 has sold the suit house to the husband of respondent no. 1 on 16/8/1974. All these facts unequivocally go to show that the husband of the plaintiff had acquired title and the husband of plaintiff had gifted this property to the plaintiff in the year 1986, whereas the evidence led by the defendants did not inspire confidence that Amir’s father was the owner of the property, who had purchased the said property in the year 1958 from Bakshulal and Najubee. 6. Both the Courts on evaluation of evidence have concurrently come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved her ownership. The view taken by the Courts below is a possible view. 7. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 88.2007 4 SA 88.2007