1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mrs. S.G.Chincholkar, Advocate for the appellant. ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 16/11/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit property claiming that the plaintiff Chandrabhagabai is the daughter of defendant no. 1 born through Krushnaji @ Isnaji, whereas the case of defendant no. 1 Tulsabai is that the plaintiff is her daughter born from the wedlock with Hausaji. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record such as the Ferfar, mutation entries, registered sale deeds executed by the plaintiff in respect of the property of Hausaji and also the evidence of 2 defendant no. 1, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the daughter of defendant no. 1 born from the wedlock of defendant no. 1 with Hausaji and dismissed the Suit. The plaintiff filed Appeal against the said Judgment and Decree. The appellate Court dismissed the Appeal confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment before this Court. 3. Mrs. Chincholkar, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the sale deeds which are relied upon to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the daughter of Hausaji and defendant no. 1, are not proved as is required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. No attesting witness has been examined to prove the said sale deed. In absence of the same, the said sale deeds could not have been relied upon. The learned counsel further contended that even the brother of Krushnaji @ Isnaji has stepped in the witness box and deposed in favour of the plaintiff. The said deposition ought to have been relied upon. The learned counsel further contended that there is discrepancy in the age mentioned in the sale deed and the school record, which shows the falsity of the said sale deed. If the age in the school record is considered, the plaintiff was only of 17 years age when the alleged sale deeds were executed. On these counts, the learned counsel states that the Judgments passed by the Courts below are required to be re-considered. 3 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments delivered by both the Courts. 5. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is the daughter of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 has specifically stated that the plaintiff is born to her from the wedlock with Hausaji. Even the mutation entry shows that the plaintiff has inherited the property of Hausaji. The plaintiff has also executed sale deeds in respect of the property inherited from Hausaji. The contention of Mrs. Chincholkar, the learned counsel that the said sale deeds could not have been relied upon in view of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act on account of non examination of the attesting witness, can not be sustained in as much as the sale deed is not the document which requires compulsory attestation. More over, that is not the solitary evidence relied upon by the Courts below. The Courts have also relied upon the mutation entries and the testimony of the defendant no. 1, who admittedly is the mother of the plaintiff. The view taken by the Courts below is a plausible and possible view, which needs no interference in the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. In light of the above, as the Second Appeal is sans any substantial question of law, the same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. 7. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, Civil 4 Application does not survive and is disposed off. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 501.10