1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2008 (Smt. Manoramabai Nurdas Thomas & Ors. vs. Smt. Yashoda Purushottam Dhokane) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 28, 2009. Heard Shri Kariya, learned counsel for appellants – defendants. The appellants are original defendants. The common judgments and decrees are delivered by the Courts below. The respondent – plaintiff has filed suit alleging forcible dispossession pointing out that she has purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 6.2.1996 for Rs.30,000/-. The Courts have found concurrently in her favour. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that appellants No. 2 to 6 are not parties to sale deed, proper court fee has not been paid by the respondent and the fact of dispossession has not been established. It is further alleged that in any case, sale deed to the extent of shares of appellants No. 2 to 6 in suit property should have been held to be inoperative. The suit has been filed in the year 1997 when exemption to women litigants was operative 2 and the said blanket exemption has been deleted by issuing corrigendum on 23.3.2000. The objection in relation to court fee is, therefore, misconceived. Similarly, the fact of execution of sale deed has come on record. In order to show her possession, plaintiff has relied upon public document i.e. record of Nazul Parcha below Exh. 46. There is no specific defence in relation to said document by the defendants. The perusal of para 15 of the judgment of the trial Court shows that appellant No.1 has accepted the entire case of the plaintiff and also about execution of sale deed and she has also stated that there was no pressure on her when she executed that document. It has also come on record that the defendants except defendant No. 6 – Yuvraj all were present at the time of execution of sale deed and there was a letter of attorney given to defendant No.1 by defendant No. 6 – Yuvraj. In view of these findings which are not shown to be perverse, it is apparent that the questions sought to be raised, really do not fall for consideration. No substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. It is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE *GS.