1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 403/2010 (Baburao Balaji Thaokar (Baburao Maroti Thaokar) VERSUS Zunabai wd/o Waktuji Atkari & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri J.B. Kasat, counsel for the appellant. Shri D.K. Dubey, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 1 , 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original defendant no.1. A suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit properties. According to the plaintiff Zunabai,she was the sole legal heir of one Maroti. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant no.1- appellant illegally dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for declaration and possession. The defendant no.1 denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was denied by the defendant no.1 that the plaintiff became the sole owner of the suit property after the death of Maroti. According to the defendant no.1/appellant, he was the adopted son of Maroti and Tulsabai. The 2 defendant then pleaded that there was a partition of the suit property in the year 1993 between the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 and the widow of Maroti, by name Tulsabai. The defendant no.1 pleaded that he was the owner of the land, which fell to his share i.e. 2.20 HR of land from the suit property. The defendant no.1 sought for the dismissal of the suit. The other defendants also denied the claim of the plaintiff. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that she was the absolute owner of the suit property as she was the only legal heir of Maroti, who was the owner of the suit property. The Courts held that the defendant no.1 had falsely got his name mutated in regard to the suit property and had failed to prove the partition of the year 1993. Even otherwise, according to both the Courts, the defendant no.1 having failed to prove that he was the adopted son of Maroti, could not have claimed that there was a partition of the suit properties between the plaintiff, Tulsabai and the defendant no.1-appellant. All the other issues were also answered by both the Courts in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and granted a declaration in favour of the plaintiff that she was the owner of 3 the suit property and was entitled to possession and mesne profits. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Both the Courts have clearly held that the defendant no.1 had utterly failed to prove that he was the adopted son of Maroti. The Courts relied on the oral evidence of the parties and specially the admission of the defendant no.1 in his cross-examination while deciding this issue. Having decided this issue to the aforesaid effect, the Courts held that the defendant no.1 could not have claimed that there was a partition of the suit properties in the year 1993, specially when the partition-deed was not a registered document. The Courts rightly held that having failed to prove that he was the adopted son of Maroti, the defendant no.1 could not have received any share in the suit properties by a partition. The findings, being pure findings of facts, 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 APTE