1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.67/2010 Sahebrao Gulabrao Mahinge & others ..vs.. Parwatabai Gulabrao Mahinge through LRS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri R. M. Ahirrao, advocate for appellant C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 19th MARCH, 2010. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They had filed a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff no.1 was the owner of the land survey No.172/2 and the defendant no.1 had no right to sell the same to the defendant no.2 by sale deed dated 29.1.1996. It is necessary to note that the plaintiff no.1 and the plaintiff no.2 are the sons of the plaintiff no.4. Similarly the defendant no.1 is the mother of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and the wife of the plaintiff no.4. Also the defendant no.2 is the daughter of plaintiff no.4 and defendant no.1 and sister of plaintiff nos.1 and 2. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that in the year 1970, 8 acres of land in survey no.172/2 was purchased by plaintiff no.1, plaintiff no.4 and one Rangrao the deceased brother of plaintiff no.1 in the name of defendant no.1. According to the plaintiff consideration for the property was paid by the plaintiff no.1 Rangrao, and plaintiff no.4. It was the case of the plaintiff that it was a joint family property of the 2 plaintiff and in the year 1976 there was an oral partition of the joint family property and the suit land fell to the share of the plaintiff no.1 and was in his possession. The defendant denied the case of the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the defendants that the suit property was purchased by the defendant no.1 in the year 1970 from her own funds. The trial and the first appellate court considered the evidence tendered by the parties and on appreciation of the same recorded a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the plaintiff no.1 was the owner of the said property and the same was purchased by the plaintiff no.1, plaintiff no.4 and Rangrao in the name of defendant no.1. The courts further held that the suit land was not the joint family property and the plaintiff had also failed to prove that there was a partition of the joint family properties in the year 1976. It was held by both the courts that the defendant no.1 had purchased the suit property from her own income as she had inherited certain house property and other properties and ornaments from her mother. The courts came to a conclusion that the suit property was self acquired property of the defendant no.1. The findings recorded by both the court are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of material on record and since they do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP