IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.449 OF 2009 APPELLANT: Sau. Madhuri w/o Shrikant Kedar & others VERSUS RESPONDENT: President, Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & others =================================================== Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for appellant Shri V.N. Morande, advocate for repsondent no.2 & 3. =================================================== CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 17.3.2010 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The appellants are the original plaintiffs and the suit was filed for cancellation of the gift deed executed by one Narayan, on 3.8.81 in favour of the respondent Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal – the defendant. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Narayan the uncle of the plaintiffs did not have any right, title and interest in the suit property and therefore, could not have validly gifted the suit property on 3.8.1981. According to plaintiffs the property belonged to the father of the plaintiff by name Madhukar and grand mother of the plaintiffs by name Kamlabai. The suit was filed in the year 2001. 3] Defendants denied the case of the plaintiffs and pleaded that Narayan was the owner of the property and had gifted the property to the defendant. According to the defendants the property did not belong to Kamlabai and Madhukar. Defendants raised a plea that the suit was barred by limitation as the gift deed was executed in the year1981 and suit was filed in the year 2001. 4] On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the evidence was led and on appreciation of the same, the trial as well as first appellate court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. According to both the courts, Madhukar and Kamlabai were aware of the execution of the gift deed in the year 1981 and did not challenge the same during their life time. The courts held that the plaintiff could not have been clothed with the right to challenge the gift deed in the year 2001. Since Kamlabai and Madhukar did not challenge the gift deed for a period of 17 years, the courts rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation. 5] Though the plaintiffs produced certain sale deeds on record to show that Madhukar and Kamlabai were the owners of certain property in survey no.15, the courts found that the plaintiff's did not succeed in proving that the property gifted to the defendant was the same which was purchased by Madhukar and Kamlabai by the sale deeds. The suit property did not form the entire survey no.15 and therefore, the courts held that the plaintiffs did not prove the title of Kamlabai and Madhukar over the suit property. The findings recorded by both the courts on the aforesaid issues are pure findings of facts, based on proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.