1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.319/2010 Smt. Sugnabai wd/o Bannalal Bharut & ors ..vs... Ashokchand Bannalal Bharut & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 26/8/2010 Heard Shri Mardikar, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellants are the original defendants no.1,2,3, 6,8, 10 to 12. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of the property. According to the plaintiff, the property was owned by Bannalal the father of the plaintiff and the husband of defendant no.1. The appellants are the defendants no.1,2,3,6,8, 10, 11 and 12. According to the plaintiff the plaintiff also had a share in the property left behind by Bannalal. The appellants denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the plaintiff had executed a relinquishment deed, relinquishing his share in the suit property in favour of defendant no.2 Indarchand. The defendants pleaded that the property had been partitioned on 5.3.1989. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the suit property was the joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants. The trial court held that the signature of the plaintiff on the relinquishment deed was not obtained by the defendant no.2 fraudulently or by misrepresentation. The court held that the defendants had not succeeded in proving that there was a partition of the property on 5.3.1989. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession. 2 The first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. The first appellate court held that the suit property was the joint family property of the parties and the defendant no.2 had obtained the signature of the plaintiff on the relinquishment deed fraudulently and by mis-representation. The first appellate court confirmed the finding of the trial court that the defendants had not proved that there was a partition of the property on 5.3.1989. The findings recorded by the first appellate court are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The first appellate court rightly considered the fact that the plaintiff had merely admitted the signature on the relinquishment deed and had been successful in proving that the relinquishment deed was obtained by defendant no.2 fraudulently and by misrepresentation. Both the courts further considered the fact that the relinquishment deed was an unregistered document and the defendant no.2 could not have claimed title over the share of the plaintiff in the suit property in pursuance of an unregistered relinquishment deed. Both the courts rightly held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for partition and separate possession. Since the findings recorded by both the courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.