(1) SA. 442.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2009 Mariambee w/o. Abdul Quadar died through LRs. and others .. Appellants VERSUS Abdul Hamid S/o. Mohammad Yusuf and others .. Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2009 Mehtab S/o Imamsaheb Khoriwale died through LRs. and others .. Appellants VERSUS Abdul Hamid S/o. Mohammad Yusuf and others .. Respondents AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6854 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2009 Mehtab S/o Imamsaheb Khoriwale died through LRs. and others .. Applicants VERSUS Abdul Hamid S/o. Mohammad Yusuf and others .. Respondents ... Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the appellants in Second Appeal no. 442 of 2009 and for respondent no. 13-2-1, 13-2-2(a) to 13-2-2(c), 13-2-3, 13-2-4, 13-2-5, 13-3, 13-5 and 13-6 in S.A. 468 of 2009 Mr. H.M. Karwa, Advocate for the respondent no.1 in both the Second Appeals Mr. P.M. Vyas, Advocate with Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent no.2 in both the Second Appeals Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent nos. 14(1) to 14(8) in S.A. 442 of 2009 and for the appellants in Second Appeal no. 468 of 2009 (2) SA. 442.2009 Mrs. V.A. More, AGP. for the respondent-State in both the Second Appeals Mr. M.P. Gude, Advocate for the respondent no.34 to 37 None present for other respondents, though served. ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 16TH FEBRUARY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The Second Appeals are heard for admission. Both these Second Appeals do not deserve admission. There is no substantial question of law involved in these appeals. The only question of fact which the lower Court discussed was whether the original defendant no.1 Mariambee gifted the suit land to her nephew original plaintiff no.1. The trial Court held that the original plaintiff no.1 could not prove the gift however, the first appeal Court giving cogent reasons, accepted his case of oral gift. The appellants are admittedly tenants in respect of certain lands belonging to the original defendant no.1 Mariambee. Initially, they were cultivating entire land survey no. 243 which admeasured about 21 acre. It is admitted fact that in the year 1959, Mariambee made an application under section 44 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act and sought resumption of the lands for personal cultivation. Tenancy Court in 1963 allowed her (3) SA. 442.2009 application partly and the area of 12A 20G land out of survey no. 243 was handed over to Mariambee. Thereafter, Mariambee, as said above effected gift of this land in favour of her nephew original plaintiff no.1. The appellants-tenants got aggrieved because of this transaction, the information of which they received through the mutation entry etc. They claim that the landlady could not have gifted the land to her nephew within 10 years from the date of resumption of possession and according to them, it amounted to violation of the conditions laid down under section 44 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. In view of this, and due to such grievance they made an application under section 46 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act and sought the possession of the land back. They made this application way back in the year 1973 or so and the litigation [Writ Petition no. 1980 of 1998] about this is still pending. 2] In view of this, the appellants practically have no case in these Second Appeals. So, both the Second Appeals stand dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application no.6854 of 2009, seeking stay also stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp