1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2008 1. DURJAN RAMA DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER 2. DURJAN S/O RAMA DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER BORGAON TAL DEORI DIST GONDIA .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. ISHWAR BHONDU DESHMUKH 2. ISHWAR S/O BHONDU DESHMUKH BORGAON TA DEORI DIST GONDIA .. RESPONDENTS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri S. Borkar Adv for appellants. 2 CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 11 th AUGUST, 2009. This Second Appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below. 2. Plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and possession and injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property belonged to one Chandrabhaga wd/o Dhondu. It is further their case that Chandrabhaga was living with them and defendants are claiming to be owners on the basis of the sale deed said to be executed by Chandrabhaga. According to them Chandrabhaga had never been to Sub Registrar’s office for execution of the sale deed and she has not executed any sale deed in favour of the defendant. It is also their contention that Chandrabhaga infact had executed a deed of gift in their favour and they are the owners of the suit property and defendant is unnecessarily causing obstruction to the possession of the property. 3. The defendant had contended that Chandrabhaga had in fact sold the said property by registered sale deed and he had become the owner thereof. Plaintiffs have no right what so ever over 3 in the suit property. 4. Learned Judge of the trial Court found that plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit property. He also found that the sale deed executed by Chandrabhaga was not a bogus sale deed and plaintiffs were not entitled to any injunction. Plaintiffs therefore preferred appeal before the District Judge and Additional District Judge found that the sale deed executed by Chandrabhaga was not bogus and the gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs is not proved and therefore he dismissed the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. According to her defendants have not entered the witness box and plaintiffs evidence was sufficient to say that documents executed by Chandrabhaga was bogus. 6. I have gone through the judgment of the first appellate Court. Judgment of the first appellate Court clearly goes to show that he has considered all the aspects including registration of the sale deed. He has considered the evidence of the two attesting 4 witnesses and the sale deed executed by the plaintiff. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that two attesting witnesses had in fact signed the sale deed as attesting witnesses. It cannot therefore lie in their mouth to say that Chandrabhagabai was not at all present when the sale deed was executed. I do not find that there is anything wrong in appreciation of the evidence. Gift deed has been rightly rejected by the Court below because it is not a registered document. No other substantial question of law is raised before me. There is no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 5 6 7