1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.448 OF 2007 WITH C.A.S. NO.569 OF 2006 Vishnukant Shankarrao Bhantar Appellant vs. Ramesh Shankarrao Bhantar & ors. Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole for the Appellant. Mr.A.B.Avad for Respondent No.1. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 10th June, 2008 P.C. This is a Second Appeal preferred only by original defendant no.1 as after considering the material as well as evidence placed on record and basically admitted Registered Will dated 7.4.1965 by late Posanibai, the grand mother of Appellant and Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, the appeal preferred by defendant no.1 is dismissed. 2. The second facet is and as rightly noted by the Appellate Court while confirming the trial Court’s judgment and order which is reproduced as under: "12. The most glaring circumstance which goes to prove the case of plaintiff and dis-proves the case of defendant no.1 is that the defendant no.1 had admittedly filed return 2 under Urban and Ceiling Act in the concerned office. When this return was referred to the defendant no.1 in the cross-examination, he has admitted all the contents in it, then signature which is appearing on the return as belonged to him. The return is at exh.76. The contents in this return specifically shows that defendant no.1 has shown the suit properties in that return and further mentioned in the return that the properties are joint amongst him and his brothers and that all of them are having 1/7th share, each. So, by this admission given by the defendant no.1 in writing in this return indicates that the defendant no.1 was well aware that the suit properties though acquired by him under Will-deed were treated by him as joint family properties. Because, this return came to be filed by the defendant no.1 after long time of acquiring the properties by the defendant no.1 under Will-deed. The fact is evident that Posanibai died on 8.5.1967, and so from that moment the suit properties were acquired by the defendant no.1 under Will-deed executed by Posanibai. This return came to be filed by the defendant no.1 in concerned office exh. 76 on 1.4.1976. So, after nine years of the 3 execution of the Will-deed the defendant no.1 was of the opinion that the suit properties are joint family properties and he has got 1/7th share each. Keeping in mind these notions by the defendant no.1 for long time cannot permit the defendant no.1 to state that he had acquired suit properties exclusively under will-deed or that he had never blended the properties in joint family properties. There is no explanation in the pleadings of the defendant no.1 as to for what reason this return came to be filed by the defendant no.1 and he stated therein that his brothers including plaintiff has got 1/7th share each. During the course of evidence, the defendant no.1 attempted to say that such mention in the return was made by him wrongly. But, again there is no evidence from the side of defendant no.1 as to what were the reasons for making such reference wrongly in the return. Therefore, this document of return exh.76 clearly indicates that the plaintiff has got 1/7th share in the suit properties." 3. This finding so given by the Courts below establishes the case of plaintiff that defendant no.1 was Manager of the suit property; defendant no.1 failed 4 to prove that deceased Poshanibai bequeathed her share exclusively to him; defendant is estopped from denying the plaintiff’s share and plaintiff proved that deceased transferred the suit property for convenience in the name of defendant no.1. Therefore, the further finding given by the Appellate Court affirming all issues after re-appreciating the material available on record is within the frame work of law and the record. Therefore, in the absence of any perversity, there is no case made out. The Second Appeal is therefore dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of Appeal, Civil Application No.569/2006 is also dismissed. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]