1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.330 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 23.11.2010. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the present Respondent for declaration of title regarding land Gat No.252 to the extent of of 3 acres 5 gunthas. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 2. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. Mr.Naik, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff has admitted her thumb impression on the sale deed in question. In fact, she had admitted the thumb impression on the sale-deed executed by her husband and not by her. She has denied the execution of the sale-deed. The learned counsel further submitted that an application was given to refer the said thumb impression to the handwriting expert which was not considered by both the Courts and on that count the matter be remanded. The learned counsel further contended that plaintiff is an old illiterate lady and the evidence deserves to be scanned taking into account the old age and illiteracy of the plaintiff. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. It is on record that two sale deeds vide Exhs.26 and 27 came to be executed in favour of the defendant. One sale deed is executed by Trimbak i.e. husband of the appellant in the year 1980 for four acres, in the year 1983 for 5 acres 5 gunthas. The plaintiff came with the case that her husband is the owner of 7 acres of land only. Both the Courts have considered that the husband of the plaintiff may be owner to the extent of 11 acres and not 7 acres. The plaintiff could not specifically state her case. The Courts have taken into consideration the admissions given by the plaintiff that she has executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant and has also admitted her thumb impression. 4. Though the evidence on the part of the defendant was also not very clear, still, it is the cardinal principle of Civil Jurisprudence that plaintiff has to stand on his own feet. In light of the fact that plaintiff could not prove her case, the Courts have dismissed the suit on appreciation of evidence. 5. In light of the above, the Second Appeal being devoid of any substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.23.11.2010. asp/office/sa330.10