:1: 941.sa.360.09 J ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 360 OF 2009 1.Chandrakant Maruti Devrukhe Deceased through L.Rs. & Ors .. Appellants Vs. 1.Smt.Kashibai Mahadeo Devrukhe & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar,for Appellants. Mr. P. B. Shah,for Respondents. CORAM :- RANJIT MORE, J. DATE :- AUGUST 10, 2011 P.C.: Heard Mr. Warunjikar and Mr. Shah, the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. The Appellant is the original Defendant. The Respondents filed suit for declaration that the Sale Deed dated 02.06.1981 was obtained by the Appellant’s father from the Defendant’s father, by practicing fraud. The declaration is also sought that the same is not binding on the Respondent-Plaintiff. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit is not filed within limitation and secondly, the fraud is not proved. The lower Appellate :2: 941.sa.360.09 J Court, at the instance of the Respondent-Plaintiff reversed the Trial Court’s decree. The Appellate Court gave finding that the suit is filed within limitation. The Appellate Court also recorded finding of fact that the Sale Deed dated 02.06.1981 was obtained by the Appellant’s father from the Defendant’s father by practicing fraud . 2 Mr.Warunjikar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that there are no pleadings of fraud in a plaint; and in the absence of those pleadings, the findings cannot be recorded. This submission is denied by Mr. Shah, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 3 With the help of the Learned Counsel, I have gone through the plaint and depositions. In paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 of the plaint, the respondent plaintiff has made averment about fraud. The Respondent also adduced evidence on record, on the basis of which the lower Appellate Court recorded the finding of fact that the Sale Deed dated 02.06.1981 is the out-come of the fraud. This finding of fact is not liable to be interfered with in the aforesaid Second Appeal. 4 So far as point of limitation is concerned, the lower Appellate Court in paragraph No. 14 of the impugned judgment has recorded finding that the Respondent-Plaintiff had got knowledge about the fraud, as soon as record was verified upon the threat given to his possession in :3: 941.sa.360.09 J March, 1990. The suit is thereafter filed in April 1991. In these circumstances, the Appellate Court has recorded finding that the suit is within limitation. Mr. Warunjikar, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants relied upon the paras of the deposition of the Respondent- Plaintiff which is transcribed in Marathi to contend that cause of action arose in the year 1985. I have perused the said paragraph alongwith English version thereof. The total reading of the Respondent-Plaintiff’s deposition along with pleading in the plaint, makes it clear that the cause of action arose in the year 1989 only, and therefore, I am satisfied that the suit is filed within limitation. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (RANJIT MORE , J.)