( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ FIRST APPEAL NO.284 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.284 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.284 OF 2009 Umesh Vinayak Vaidya ..Appellant V/s. Smt.Rajlaxmi Mangesh Vaidya & Ors. ..Respondents ...... Mr.Sandesh Deshpande for the appellant ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 16th April, 2009 DATED : 16th April, 2009 DATED : 16th April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The appellant herein instituted suit in the Court of IV Additional Judge, Small Causes Court and Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune being Special Civil Suit No.1057 of 2005 for declaration that he has a right in respect of the flat then standing in the name of the original defendant No.3 i.e. respondent No.3 in this first appeal. 2. The appellant approached the learned Trial ( 2 ) Judge with a case that plot No.61 which came to be developed and suit flat which came to be in existence was owned by father of the appellant and the husband of respondent No.1 i.e. brother of the appellant was not the owner of the said plot and that the appellant had a right in respect of the said flat. 3. The Trial Judge has considered the entire record and has given positive observation that the appellant has not been able to show that the said plot No.61 was owned by father of the appellant. In paragraph 11, the learned Trial Judge has explained as to how the plot No.61 came to be acquired by husband of respondent No.1 under lease deed for a period of 999 years and as to how the Society had issued a share certificate in favour of the husband of respondent No.1. In paragraph 17 also the learned Trial Judge has observed that the appellant has failed to produce documentary evidence to show that his father was the member of the Society. In substance, the appellant has not been able to place before the Court any material whatsoever to show that plot No.61 was owned by the father of the appellant and if this be so, the stand of the appellant that he has a right in respect of the suit flat which is presently held by respondent No.3 cannot be accepted. ( 3 ) 4. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that at the time when husband of respondent No.1 secured rights in respect of plot No.61, he was hardly 18 years old and that it was difficult to accept that he was raise monies for the purchase of the said plot. In my view, such a contention cannot be accepted when the appellant had the benefit of full dressed trial and when he could produce before the Court any material to show that the monies for purchase of plot No.61 were secured by husband of respondent No.1 from some other source. If this is the position, the stand of the appellant that he has vested rights in regard to plot No.61 and consequently vested rights in the flat which is held by respondent No.3, cannot be accepted. 5. The learned trial Judge has considered the entire record in the proper perspective and has arrived at proper finding and no interference is required at the stage of first appeal. Hence, the first appeal is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . First Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs. ( 4 ) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)