1 56 sa 683.10 cas 1839.10.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.683 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1839 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.683 OF 2010 Ranjana Shankar Kamble & Ors. ..Appellants. Vs. Sushila Shankar Kamble & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. P.D.Dalvi for the appellants. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 06/12/2010. PC: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2010 passed by the appeal court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents-plaintiffs against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the trial court by which their suit was dismissed. By that judgment (dated 18.11.2009) the counter claim filed by the defendants was also dismissed. In appeal, the appeal court held that appellant no.1 is legally wedded wife of deceased Shanker Yallappa Kamble and entitled 2 56 sa 683.10 cas 1839.10.doc for family pension being his first wife. Appellant no.1 also claims that she is legally wedded wife of the deceased Shanker. The appeal court seems to have taken such view in favour of plaintiff no.1 mainly on the basis of nomination form at Exhibit-72 having signature of the deceased Shanker Kamble. 3 Mr. Dalvi, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the nomination form was not proved by the plaintiffs and therefore it was wrongly relied upon to hold that plaintiff no.1 is legally wedded wife of the deceased Shanker. He submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that it was 30 years old document. He further submitted that defendant no.1, who produced the document, was not examined as a witness nor the executant or the author of the nomination form was examined. In view thereof, he submitted, it was wrongly exhibited as Exhibit-72 by the courts below and relied upon for holding plaintiff no.1 a legally wedded wife of Shanker. I have perused the judgments of the courts below. It appears that the nomination form was produced by defendant no.1 from their custody. It bears a signature of Shanker Kamble. The signature of Shanker on the said document is not disputed by the defendants. The nomination form was in the custody of Treasury Officer. That being so it is held to be a public document within the meaning of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is also 3 56 sa 683.10 cas 1839.10.doc 30 years old document and therefore, it is exhibited relying upon section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. Insofar as age of the document is concerned, I do not find any such ground having been raised either in the grounds of appeal filed before the first appeal court or even before this court. In my opinion, both the courts below have considered this aspect in proper prospective and in the light of the provisions of sections 74 and 90 of the Indian Evidence Act exhibited the nomination form holding that its contents stand proved. The contentions urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant either before the court below or this court, in my opinion, are devoid of any merits and deserve to be rejected. Considering the findings of fact recorded by the court below and that there is sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering that no substantial question of law is either raised or involved in the appeal, in my opinion, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. 4 Civil application also stands disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)