1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO.134/2007 Barubai wd/o Hirchand Katre & anr. ..vs.. Gulchand Katre. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 31st MARCH, 2008. 1. Heard Smt.Anita Shinde, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This is an appeal by the original defendant. The plaintiff had instituted a suit claiming to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of the sale-deed said to be executed in favour of the plaintiff by the husband of defendant no.1 in the year 1972. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants caused obstruction to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Hence, he instituted a suit for injunction. The trial court found that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale-deed executed in his favour in 1972. It, 2 however, found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and therefore, the suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff therefore preferred an appeal before the District Judge. 3. The learned Additional District Judge, who decided the appeal, found that the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale-deed and possession was that of the plaintiff and being owner, he was entitled to an injunction. Holding so, he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. It is this decree that is challenged. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant no.1 contended before me that the case of the plaintiff that there was a partition and that defendant no.1's husband has transferred the suit field to the plaintiff is not correct. According to her, there were six sharers and there was partition amongst four only. The courts below have concurrently found that the husband of defendant no.1 Hirchand had executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff of the property which had fallen to his share. The sale-deed was executed in the year 1972 and Hirachand – the husband of appellant/defendant 3 no.1 – was alive till 1989. From 1972 to 1989 Hirachand did not challenge this sale-deed on any of the grounds. Since Hirachand himself did not challenge the sale-deed on any of the grounds, the defendant had no right to say that it was obtained from Hirchand by fraud or undue influence. The courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale-deed. The first appellate court found that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. There is, therefore, no question of law involved in the appeal. All questions that were raised were questions of fact. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. JUDGE pzc