1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.47 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri D.Y. Nandedkar, Advocate for the appellant and Shri H.V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No 2. No one is present for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. 2. This appeal from order is directed against the order passed by learned III Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded on 13.5.2009 dismissing application Exhibit 7 in Special Civil Suit No.81 of 2009. 3. Admittedly, present appellant-who is original plaintiff, is the wife of Respondent No. 2 who was original defendant No.2. Respondent No. 2 has sold the property owned by him which 2 was bearing CTS No.386 and Municipal No.1-9-526 survey No. 13/2/A situated at Shrinagar, Nanded. Respondent No.2 is aged 82 years of age. It is submitted that by fraud and misrepresentation, Respondent No.1, who was working on the flour mill of Respondent No.2, obtained sale deed from Respondent No. 2 in respect of part of the property. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 sold the same to Respondent No 3 and, therefore, suit is filed for setting aside both the sale deeds which are dated 18.7.2008 and 7.2.2009. 4. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, rejected application Exhibit 7 for injunction restraining defendants-respondent Nos. 1 and 3 from obstructing or otherwise causing interference in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The learned Judge has held that admittedly property belonged to Defendant No.2 who is husband of present appellant- original plaintiff. In the 3 circumstances the suit ought to have been filed by Respondent No.2-original defendant No. 2 being owner of the property. The plaintiff-appellant during lifetime of Respondent No. 2 could not have succeeded the property and is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. 5. In paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment, there is a reference to the argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court Judge that as per amended Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff has a legal right. But, the said amendment refers to unmarried daughters who will have equal right with sons as co-parceners. It is observed that no additional rights are conferred upon the married women to claim the share in the property which is exclusively owned by their husbands. It is submitted that Respondent No. 1 ought to have filed suit. Admittedly, subsequently Respondent No. 2 has filed suit which is pending. 4 6. It is also submitted that Respondent No. 2 has filed criminal case against Respondent No.1 for cheating and that the counterclaim made by Respondent No.2-husband of the plaintiff-appellant is tenable. Without entering into that question, I may refer to other reasons given by learned Judge. 7. The learned Civil Judge has observed that there are two circumstances clearly indicating that the sale deed was with free consent. First circumstance is that Respondent No. 2 was well equipped with documents, such as, PR card, map of the property and I-card when he had gone to the office of the Sub Registrar. Ordinarily, if a witness is called just to attest the sale deed or identify the seller, there is no necessity of PR card, map of the property and only I- card would have been sufficient. 5 Secondly, it is also observed that Respondent No. 2 not only executed original sale deed in favour of Respondent No. 1, but subsequently on 13.10.2008 he executed correction deed, which was three months after Respondent No. 2 first visited the office of the Sub Registrar. It is also observed that there is presumption in respect of registered documents. 8. In the circumstances, in my opinion, this is not a case wherein Appeal from Order should be admitted as the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court Judge is a well reasoned order. Hence, Appeal from Order is dismissed. Date:22/09/2009 pnd/ao47.09 (P.R.BORKAR,J.)