1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2001 (Ramkrishna Natthuji Awachat .v. Smt.Anjanabai Natthuji Awachat) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.S. Bhendarkar, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : C.L. PANGARKAR, J. 18TH MARCH, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This appeal has been filed by unsuccessful plaintiff. The plaintiff had instituted civil suit against his own mother for eviction on the ground that the mother was permitted by him to run a flour mill in the premises. The defendant-mother had contended that the suit property was purchased by her in the name of her two sons from her own earnings. That it was subsequently agreed that the plaintiff would continue to occupy the ancestral house while the defendant and her children would occupy suit house. The learned trial Court has recorded a finding that the contention of the plaintiff that he had allowed the defendant to occupy the suit house seems to be incorrect. On the other hand, it is proved that the 2 defendant was living in the suit house with the two daughters of the plaintiff. He, therefore, dismissed the suit. The learned appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal holding that the suit property was not the exclusive property of the plaintiff and, therefore, he had no right to evict the defendant. I am taken through the evidence by the learned Counsel for the appellant. It appears from the evidence that the defendant was doing the business and running the flour mill and having the separate source of income. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the sale deed was executed in the name of the plaintiff alone and, therefore, the plaintiff alone should have been held as owner by the learned Courts below. He submitted that the oral evidence is not admissible in view of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. After having gone through the records of the learned trial Court, it appears that there were two agreements of sale. Both the agreements of sale were in the name of two brothers jointly and it appears that after those agreements of sale, two separate sale deeds were executed. The fact that the two agreements of sale were in the joint name of two brothers clearly goes to suggest that the property was purchased in the name of joint 3 family. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence. There is no substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as such. JUDGE *rrg.