1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APEPAL NO.212 OF 2010 Lahanu Dama Yeshanpure & anor ..vs.. Beniram Mangal Raut & ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 11th June, 2010. Heard Shri Pillai, the learned advocate for the appellant. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for possession of agricultural property which according to the plaintiff was the joint property of the two brothers Rama and Dama. The suit property and certain other properties originally belonged to one Warlu. Rama and Dama were the sons of Warlu. Rama was a bachelor. Dama had three issues and they are the plaintiffs / appellants. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Rama sold the suit property in the year 1965 to one Mangal and the defendants are the sons and daughters of Mangal. The plaintiffs pleaded that Rama did not have any right to sell the property to Mangal in the year 1965 as the property belonged jointly to Rama and Dama after the death of Warlu. According to the plaintiff the sale deed 2 executed in the year 1965 was not valid. The defendants filed the written statement and resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. It was admitted that initially the property belonged to Warlu. According to the defendants, they are the children of Mangal and Mangal was the son of one Kuksabai the sister of Rama and Dama. In the year 1958 Rama and Dama had separated and after the separation / partition, Mangal purchased the field from Rama in the year 1965 by registered sale deed. Mangal was in possession of the property till his death and thereafter the defendants continued to cultivate the property of Mangal. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the property mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint originally belonged to Warlu. The trial court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit property till the year 2001. The court held that the defendants had succeeded in proving that there was a partition of the properties between Rama and Dama in the year 1958 and Kuksabai was the sister of Rama and Dama. The court held that Mangal was the son of Kuksabai and the property which fell to the share of Rama was sold by Rama to Mangal by registered sale deed dated 15.2.1965. In view of the aforesaid finding the trial court dismissed 3 the suit of the plaintiff for grant of possession. The first appellate court re-appreciated the evidence on record to hold that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were in possession of the property till the year 2001 and the defendants dispossessed them. it was held that the property initially belonged to Warlu and though there was absence of convincing evidence to show that Rama and Dama were separated from each other in the year 1958, it was clear from the oral evidence tendered by the parties and the witnesses and from the documents on record that the fields belonging to Warlu had been separately recorded in the name of Rama and Dama and each had half share in the suit property. The first appellate court held that Rama had a right to sale the suit property to Mangal by sale deed executed in the year 1965. The oral as well as documentary evidence on record according to the first appellate court clearly showed that the defendants and Mangal were not in possession of the suit property since it was purchased in 1965 and the plaintiffs had never raised any objection or challenge to the sale deed executed by Rama in the year 1965 in favour of Mangal. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure 4 findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that Rama was not entitled to sell the suit property to Mangal in the year 1965 as Dama was also the joint owner of the property, is liable to be rejected in view of the findings recorded by both the courts that Rama and Dama became owners of separate properties since the year 1958 and possessed their properties separately since then. The findings recorded by both the court do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP