1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APEPAL NO.289 OF 2010 SMT. ANIMA D/O ANANT ROY AND ONE ANOTHER ..VS.. NIRMAL ANANT ROY Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J. DATED : 7 th JULY, 2010 . Heard Shri Anthony, the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs against defendant Nirmal for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit properties. According to the plaintiffs, plaintiff no.1 – Anima was the daughter of one Anant Roy and the plaintiff no.2 was the widow of Anant Roy. Defendant – Nirmal was the son of Anant Roy. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the properties belonged to Anant Roy and after his death they were entitled to a share in the suit properties. The defendant denied the case of the plaintiffs and pleaded that the property was not owned by Anant Roy, but was owned by his brother Sudhir Roy. It was the case of the defendants that Sudhir Roy had executed a will of the suit property in favour of the defendant. The 2 defendant claimed absolute ownership over the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff mainly on the basis of the 7/12 extracts which were produced by the plaintiffs on record. The crop statements showed the name of Anant Roy and not Sudhir Roy on the properties. The first appellate court, however, reversed the findings recorded by the trial court by considering the admissions of the plaintiffs in their cross-examination. It was admitted by the plaintiff in unequivocal and unambiguous terms that the suit properties were allotted to Sudhir Roy by the government for the livelihood of Sudhir Roy and his family. The plaintiffs further admitted that with a view to get rid of the prosecution and to save themselves from arrest by joining hands with Talathi they had recorded the name of Anant Roy and the plaintiffs on the suit property which belonged to Sudhir Roy. The first appellate court held that these glaring admissions were not considered by the trial court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. The first appellate court held that these admissions ought to have been considered by the trial court and the trial court ought not have decreed the suit mainly on the basis of the 7/12 extracts which showed the name of Anant Roy and his family members on the said property. Since the plaintiffs had not been successful in proving that the suit property were the ancestral or the 3 joint family property and since they had admitted that the said property belonged to Sudhir Roy as the same was allotted to him by the government, the first appellate court rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The findings recorded by the first appellate court are based on the pure material evidence on record specially the glaring admissions of the plaintiffs in the cross- examination and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.