1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SA/1488/2004 With CA/12425/2005 In SA/1488/2004 With CA/2005/2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. A.R. Borulkar, Advocate for appellant Mr. R.K. Ashtekar,, Advocate for respondents no.1,2 and 5. Mr.R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.3. [CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J ] Date : 29th March, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Unsuccessful plaintiff in both courts, is in second appeal. 2 Mr. Borulkar contemplates, both 2 the courts have remained in ignoring khasara patrak Ex. 81 for year 1954-1955 and pahani patrak Ex. 77 for year 1955-56 which according to him, illustrate name of Prayagbai as having received the agricultural property in lieu of maintenance. This, according to the learned counsel, projected substantial question of law. 3 The matter revolves to the status of the plaintiff as purchaser by virtue of a sale deed dated 05/05/1986 from Prayagbai wife of Yadavrao. Hanumantrao was father of Yadavrao. He had another brother Nilkantha and Nilkantha has son Bhimrao. This genealogy is not in controversy. The plaintiff in the pleadings in para 2 does not accept genuineness of very entries now referred at Ex. 81 and Ex. 77 to be correct and he has gone one step ahead, he desires to challenge the same. In better particulars at Ex. 129, again the jugglery is sought to be made by the 3 plaintiff setting claim in two pans making his case uneven, and the fulcrum is kept oscillating this way or that way. The uncertainties in the pleadings has sabotaged his claim of bona fide purchaser of the property. This is so, as on the date of sale deed dated 05/05/1986, it has been recited, plaintiff got crop basis earlier to the sale transaction, this is without any substance in any revenue record to substantiate. 4 The contention now raised that Prayagbai in the light of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, became absolute owner of the property, could not be coined as plaintiff himself has challenged her status in that category. S.A. sans merit. Appeal dismissed. C.A. dismissed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] tsk/sa1488.04 4