1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.247 OF 2010 SMT. REKHABAI TIKARAM AMBULE AND ONE ANOTHER ..VS.. SMT. SAVITRIBAI JAGATPAL SWHANY =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 11th June, 2010. Heard Shri Malke, the learned advocate for the appellant. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by respondent/ plaintiff for declaration and possession. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit plot having purchased the same from a Housing Society by registered sale deed dated 12.11.1982. Since the said plot was lying vacant, though plaintiff had taken the possession of the suit property, according to the plaintiff, the defendants encroached upon the plot and made some temporary construction thereon. The defendants / appellants denied the case of the plaintiff and denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the property. According to the defendants, the society had indeed agreed to sale the suit property to the defendants 2 and the defendants had also paid some consideration towards the purchase of the same. The balance consideration was payable at the time of execution of the sale deed. According to the defendants the society was however, not willing to execute the sale deed. The defendants therefore, sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial and the first appellate court on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving that she was the owner of the suit plot and she was put in possession of the same after it was purchased by her by registered sale deed dated 12.11.1982. The courts held that the defendants had illegally made a temporary construction on the suit plot. The courts held that the defendants have not succeeded in proving that the property belonged to the defendants and the suit was barred by limitation. The findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP