1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 296/2002 (Paran Ganpat Jawanjal Vs. Ku. Panchfula Janardan Ubalkar) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 27 th JUNE, 2008. Heard Shri V.M. Deshpande for the appellant, and Shri P.D. Meghe for the respondent. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff Panchfula, a minor aged 5 years at the relevant time, through her guardian mother, for a decree of confirmation of sale dated 10/6/1997 and also for possession of the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff that she was conceived to her natural mother Smt. Padma in view of the fact that her mother was raped by one Janardan. According to the plaintiff, Janardan had purchased the suit property for the plaintiff Panchfula in lieu of her maintenance. According to the plaintiff, defendant had threatened the guardian of the minor plaintiff not to enter the field property i.e. the suit field on 29/7/1997 and hence the plaintiff instituted the present suit. 2 The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and further denied that the mother of the plaintiff by name Padma was raped by Janardan as a result of which Padma conceived and gave birth to the plaintiff. It was further denied that Janardan had purchased any property in the name of the plaintiff for her maintenance. It was the case of the defendant that the plaintiff was the illegitimate daughter of the defendant and hence he had, from his own funds, purchased the suit property in the name of the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 10/6/1997. Consequently, the defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that she was the daughter of Janardan and had further failed in proving that the suit land was given to the plaintiff for her maintenance. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and the defendant had succeeded in proving that the plaintiff was depriving the defendant of possession of the suit property. In an appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment passed by the trial Court, the first appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court. The first appellate Court held that 3 the plaintiff had succeeded in proving her title to the suit property as a registered sale deed was executed in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant had not succeeded in proving that he had paid the purchase price for purchasing the land in the name of the plaintiff. The first appellate Court appreciated the material evidence on record to hold that the defendant had utterly failed in proving that he had paid an amount of Rs. 42,000/- towards the consideration of land at the relevant time. The first appellate Court held that there was no necessity of deciding the issue of paternity of the plaintiff as she had not claimed the relief that Janardan be declared as her father. Since, according to the first appellate Court, the issue involved in the instant case was about the ownership of the property, the first appellate Court rightly held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that she was the owner of the suit property in view of the fact that the sale deed was registered in her favour and the defendant had failed to prove that he had parted with the consideration payable for purchase of the land. Even otherwise, the counsel for the plaintiff had rightly raised a plea based on the provisions of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act 1988, which the first appellate Court did not consider in view of the findings that the defendant had failed to prove that 4 he had paid the purchase price. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP