1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No.99/2011 Santosh s/o Govinda Kakade and one another Vs. Damodar Shankar Surve =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. S. V. Sohoni, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED :4/3/2011 Heard Mr. Sohoni, the learned counsel for the appellants. This Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 29th November, 2010 passed in Regular Appeal No. 22/2007 by which the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 126/2004 was confirmed. The appellants herein are the original defendants and the respondent no.1 herein is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.126/2004 filed for possession and mesne profits. The suit property is open site situated in village Chikhali-Khd which is more appropriately described in paragraph no. 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff had filed the said suit claiming title to the 2 suit property on the basis of the sale deed executed by one Narayan Mukunda Surve for consideration of Rs. 9000/-. It was the case of the plaintiff that though he was put in possession of the suit property at the time of execution of the sale deed, he was forcibly dispossessed in June 2003. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the said suit claiming the said reliefs. The defendants in the written statement denied the execution of the sale deed. It was their contention that the plaintiff had wrongfully taken possession of the suit property in June 2003. It was their case that the suit property was an ancestral property of defendant no.2 i. e. vendor Narayan. The parties went to trial. The Trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff had proved the execution of the sale deed. The Trial Court further recorded a finding that the defendants had failed to prove that the sale deed was executed on account of undue influence. The Trial Court further recorded a finding that the plaintiff was dispossessed in June 2003. The Trial Court therefore decreed the suit and ordered handing over of the 3 possession to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the decreeing of the suit, the defendants filed Regular Civil Appeal No.22/2007. The Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court was of the view that the defendants had failed to prove that the sale deed was executed on account of undue influence. The Appellate Court observed that the deposition on behalf of the defendants was self-contradictory. On the one hand, they denied the execution of the sale deed and on the other they contended that the sale deed was executed on account of undue influence. Insofar as the aspect of the property being joint family property was concerned, both the Courts below have concurrently held on the basis of the evidence on record that the property was partitioned between Nago and Narayan and the mother of defendant no.1 was residing with Nago in his share. Having considered the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, in my view, the said findings cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal which is accordingly is dismissed. 4 In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, the civil application does not survive and is disposed of as such. JUDGE Ambulkar