1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 140/2010 (Vithal Japan Ramteke VERSUS Haridas Bhikaji Dhengale & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.P. Lakhanikar, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.G. Bade, counsel for the respondent no.1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 12, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original defendant no.1. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for grant of a declaration that he is the owner of plot no.3 which was purchased by him on 03.05.1985. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the plot from one Sambha and Gajanan, who had purchased it from one Palikundwar. The plaintiff sought for the possession of the suit property from the appellant-defendant no.1. The defendants filed the written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. They also denied that the plaintiff had obtained possession of the suit plot in the year 1985. It was pleaded by the defendants and specially the defendant no.1 that he had purchased plot no.2 from Arun Palikundwar by a sale-deed dated 31.03.1983. The 2 defendant no.1 pleaded that there was a correction deed executed later on to clarify that the defendant no.1 had purchased plot no.2 and not plot no.3 from the vendor. Both the Courts, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that he was the owner of the suit plot and was in possession of the same since 02.08.1985. The Courts held that the defendants had disturbed the possession of the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction as sought by him. The Court observed that the defendant no.1 had been unsuccessful in proving that he had purchased plot no.3 from one Arun Palikundwar. The Courts relied on the correction deed which showed that the defendant no.1 was the owner of the plot no.2 and not plot no.3. Since both the Courts observed that the defendant no.1 was not the owner of plot no.3, rightly the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and possession was decreed. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that the sale-deed executed by the vendors in favour of the plaintiff was not duly proved by examining the vendor is liable to be rejected as the sale-deed was exhibited 3 after one of the executants i.e. The plaintiff was examined in the case. The judgments reported in AIR 1971 SC 1865 (Sait Tarajee Khimchand & others Versus Yelamarti Satyam & others), AIR 1980 Gauhati 55 (P.G. D'Ombrain & others etc. Versus Collector of Kamrup Gauhati & another, etc) and AIR 1968 Bombay 112 (Sir Mohammed Yusuf & another Versus D & another) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE