1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.772 OF 2009 1. Sheshabai w/o Vithal Kadam, Age 29 yrs. Occu.Agril., r/o Khadaki Tarfe Maralak, Tq. and Dist.Nanded. 2. Gayabai w/o Vithal Khaire, Aged 39 yrs., Occu.Agril., r/o Dhotra, Tq.Purna, Dist. Parbhani. ...APPELLANTS (Orig.deft.no.1 & 2.) VERSUS 1. Lalba s/o Namdeo Suryawanshi, Aged 38 yrs., occu.Agril. r/o village Talni, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ...ORIG.PLTFF (2. Kishan s/o Dattaram Suryawanshi, Aged 65 yrs., occu.Agril., r/o Talni, Tq. & Dist.Nanded.) (3. Mahadu s/o Jiwanji Suryawanshi, Aged 50 yrs., occu.Agril. r/o Talani, Tq. & Dist.Nanded.) ...Orig.Deft.Nos.3 & 4 respectively. (Nos. 2 and 3 - dismissed as per Court's order dt.11.2.2009). ...RESPONDENTS ... 2 Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Adv., for the appellant. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE :25-3-2010 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Counsel for the appellant, extensively. The setting aside order of dismissal by the first appellate Court in R.C.A. No.107/1998, by judgment dt.11.4.2002, is questioned by the defendants. 2. The case that has been propagated is, DW No.2, Gayabai, wants everybody in the world to believe that she and her sisters are owners of Gat No.379, based on a gift deed being executed by their father. It is unfortunate, she was unable to give Gat number, when she stepped in the witness box. She did not express any willing to exchange the accessible land which is in possession of defendant no.3. The so called gift deed is not registered. 3. Then comes the case of the plaintiff - the plaintiff has the sale deed at Exh.61, proved through PW 3 Bhagorao. The said sale deed, indeed, is not controverted by defendant no.4. The other defendants, the sisters, canvassed that they have no knowledge regarding execution of the 3 sale deed. The learned first appellate court found that the stand taken by the petitioners was though appearing to be innocuous, is legally not sustainable and, consequently, decreed the suit. 3. No error or perversity in the orders of the first appellate Court, warranting formulation of substantial question of law. Second Appeal lacks merit. Dismissed. No costs. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] agp/772-09sa