(1) SA. 178.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2009 1] Shivaji Narayan Palwade, Age : 57 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Hellam, Tq. Parli, Dist. Beed now at Chandannagar, Pune 2] Dnyanoba Narayanrao Palwade, Age : 49 years, Occu.: and R/o as above 3] Sopan Narayanrao Palwade, Age : 36 years, Ocuc.: and R/o As above .. Appellants Versus Rukminbai Marutirao Chate, Age : 64 years, Occu.: Agri. And HH R/o Sakud, Tq. Ambajogai Dist. Beed .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3319 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2009 Shivaji Narayan Palwade and ors. .. Applicants Versus Rukhminbai Marutirao Chate .. Respondent AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2737 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2009 Shivaji Narayanrao Palwade and ors. .. Applicants Versus Rukhminbai Marutirao Chate .. Respondent (2) SA. 178.2009 Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for the Appellants- Applicants Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Ambajogai dismissing the appellants' appeal against the judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent in Regular Civil Suit no. 5 of 1996. 2] The respondent filed suit, stating that she being the only daughter of the original owner, is the owner of the suit land. As against this, the appellants who happen to be her first cousin, asserted that the respondent's father long back had gifted the suit land to them by a registered deed. Despite of this clear defence taken up by the appellants at the trial Court level, they did not file and prove the original gift deed. Due to this failure on their part, their defence was not accepted and the suit was decreed. Even the appeal filed by the appellants before the District Judge, was dismissed mainly because of their failure to bring on record the gift deed. (3) SA. 178.2009 3] In this background, at the second appellate level there is hardly any possibility of having a substantive question of law. In the absence of such substantive question of law, the second appeal does not survive. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. 4] In view of the dismissal of the second appeal no. 178 of 2009, civil application nos. 3319 of 2009 and 2737 of 2008, do not survive and are dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/22july9/SA178.09