1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.711 OF 2008 Smt.Mathubai Mahipati Kadu (Deshmukh) & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Baban Ananta Konde & Anr. ....Respondents ...... Mr.Rajdeep S.Khadapkar for Appellants. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED:- NOVEMBER 24, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Appellants. 2. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the Defendants/Appellants were not able to produce any document to show that Survey No.181 or the plot No.32 was allotted to the deceased Mahipati by the Government at any time. On the contrary, 2 there was ample evidence on record to suggest that Plot No.32 was allotted to the Plaintiff No.2 by the Government by recovering normal charges, as he was project affected person and the land was acquired for Panshet Dam Project. 2. To get over this position, Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Appellate Court could not have ignored the efficacy of Sanad (Exhibit 72). Even this aspect has been considered by the Appellate Court. It is rightly found that Sanad is not a title document. The Sanad alone cannot be the basis to derive title in respect of the disputed property. That aspect has been considered in Paragraph 17 of the impugned Judgment with reference to reported Judgments of our High Court. No fault can be found with the approach of the Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.