1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 656 OF 2006 Bajirao s/o Paraji Phulare .. APPELLANT VERSUS Shantabai d/o Munjaji Chavan & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the appellant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 11 th August, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit being Regular Civil Suit no. 6/1987 claiming the relief of recovery of possession of the suit premises. It is stated that the disputed property belongs to one Piraji s/o Limbaji Phulare, father of the plaintiff who died some 30 to 35 years back. The property in question has been allotted to the share of the plaintiff. During his life time, father of the 2 plaintiff had raised loan from defendants and mortgaged the suit property in favour of the defendants. As per the terms of the deed, amount of Rs.400/- was to be repaid after about 20 years and the mortgage was required to be redeemed. Plaintiff approached the defendants with a request to accept the amount and redeem the mortgage. However, the defendants refused for the same. Hence plaintiff presented the suit. Defendants appeared and resisted the contentions raised by the plaintiff by filing written statement. According to defendants, there was no transaction in respect of mortgage of the property as contended by the plaintiff. Defendants are in possession of the property since years together. Defendants as such prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3 After recording evidence of the parties, trial court found that the plaintiff has not substantiated his case and as such dismised the suit by judgment and decree dt. 4-5-1991. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was subjected to appeal at the instance of plaintiff in Regular Civil Appeal no. 84/1991 which came to be heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Parbhani who was pleased to dismiss the appeal by judgment and decree dt. 6-7-2000. 3 4 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. On perusal of the record it transpires that the plaintiff has not placed on record the original document i.e. mortgage deed. However, copy of the document written in Urdu language is placed on record. Plaintiff has failed to tender translation of the Urdu document. There is also no permission sought by the plaintiff for leading secondary evidence in order to prove the copy of the document. In these circumstances, the courts below were justified in burning down the case presented by plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed. 5 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa656.06.odt