1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No.45/2010 Yashwant s/o Durgaji Nitnaware Vs. Smt. Sirjanidevi w/o Mishriprasad and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. P. A. Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Mahesh Masodkar, Advocate for the respondent no.1. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED :25/1/2011. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2003 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 55/1997 by which the decree passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 55/1997 has been confirmed. The respondent no.1 herein is the original plaintiff, who had filed the suit claiming 1/5th share in the property, which was the subject matter of sale deed dated 8.2.2009 to which she was a party as a purchaser. The bone of the contention is one acre of land covered by the said sale deed. The appellant herein 2 who was defendant no.5 came to occupy the said land and on being asked by the plaintiff for her share refused to part with the share of the plaintiff, resulting in the suit being filed by the respondent no.1 herein i. e. plaintiff. The name of the defendant no.5 was entered into the sale deed dated 8.2.1989 by Correction Deed dated 6.6.1990 executed by original Vendors i. e. defendant nos. 6 to 10. It was also the case of the defendants that though the name of the plaintiffs appears in the said sale deed as a purchaser along with defendants 1 to 4, the plaintiff had not paid single paise towards purchase of the land in question. The defendant nos. 1 to 4 supported the case of the defendant no.5. The issue before the Trial Court was as regards the plaintiff’s entitlement to 1/5th share on the basis of the sale deed dated 8.2.1989 and the efficacy of the correction deed on the share of the plaintiff. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the Correction Deed was executed by the defendants 6 to 10 to defeat the right of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have held that the deletion of the plaintiff’s name from the said sale deed was unwarranted and unjustifiable as the defendants could not be said to have made any mistake as contemplated under the Contract Act. Both the Courts below have also concurrently recorded that the said Correction Deed was malafide. In so far as the case of the defendants that on account of mistake that the correction deed 3 was executed, pertinently, the said correction deed was executed after a period of about 1½ years from the defendants purportedly gaining knowledge of the mistake. The said explanation therefore was not accepted by the Courts below. In my view, considering the findings recorded by the Courts below on the aforesaid aspect, the decree passed cannot be faulted with. No substantial question of law arises in the Second Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Ambulkar