1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2008 Shamrao Ramchandra Bagal........Appellant versus Maruti Gopal Tiware & ors........ Respondents. Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar for the Appellant Mr. V. B. Rajure for respondents nos.1 and 2. CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 08th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Arjunwadkar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajure for the respondents. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He filed suit for declaration that the sale deed obtained by the respondents from original defendant no.1 Balkabai R. Bagal on 25-2-1987 is bogus and hallow. The appellant also prayed for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering his possession in the suit property namely 41 ares in Gat no. 451. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the appellant before lower appellate court was also dismissed. 2 2. It was the case of the appellant that one Ramchandra Bagal and original Defendant no.1 Balkabai adopted him on 23- 6-1979. It was his further case that Gat Nos. 248 and 250 are ancestral property and Gat No. 253 was purchased in the name of deceased Balkabai by Ramchandra Bagal in the year 1944. thus all the above three properties are ancestral properties and therefore deceased Balkabai, original defendant no.1, could not have sold 41 ares out of Gat no.253. On the contrary it was the case of the respondents, which was supported by original defendant no.1, that Gat no. 253 was purchased by deceased defendant no.1 Balkabai and same was her separate property. Therefore deceased Ballkabai rightly sold our 41 ares out of Gat no. 253 to the respondents. 3. The lower courts below concurrently held that appellant/plaintiff could not prove that on the date of purchase of Gat No.253 i.e. on 1st July 1934 Ramchandra, the husband of deceased Balkabai, was in possession of sufficient ancestral agricultural land of good quality, out of which income land Gat no.253 could have purchased. The lower courts have also held that it was for the appellant/plaintiff in order to succeed in the suit, to prove the nucleus and since the nucleus is not proved he cannot contend that the property Gat no.253 is ancestral property. Consequently, the lower courts correctly held that the same is the separate property of deceased Balkabai 3 the defendant no.1, which she was entitled to sell to the respondents. No reason pointed out to me by the learned counsel for the appellant which enable me to interfere in the impugned judgment. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved. The second appeal is therefore dismissed. (R.V. More, J.)