1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.181/2010 PUSHPARAJ SOMA BAWANE ..VS..SADHURAM NARAYAN KHOBRE & ANOTHERhg =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri K.R. Lambat, advocate for appellant C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 16th June, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs the suit field was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and their father Soma Paiku Bawne and grand mother Girji had executed a sale deed of the suit property in favour of the defendant no.1 and 2 on 5.8.1968. According to the plaintiffs the sale deed was not to be acted upon as it was a loan transaction. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that Soma, their father, was addicted to certain vices and he had sold the suit property to the defendants to satisfy his vices. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that though defendant Soma went to the defendant no1. and 2 to return the loan amount, the defendants refused to accept the same and re-convey the 2 suit field in favour of Soma and Girji. The plaintiff therefore, sought possession of the suit field. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiff and pleaded that the sale deed dated 5.8.1968 was a true sale transaction and the transaction was not a loan transaction as pleaded by the plaintiffs. They also denied that the suit property was sold by Soma to satisfy his vices. It was denied by the defendants that the sale deed dated 5.8.1968 was executed by Soma and Girji without any legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate and therefore, was not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. On an appreciation of the material evidence on record, the trial court held that the suit property was the ancestral joint Hindu property of the plaintiff no.2, his father Soma and Grand mother Girji, but not plaintiff no.1 Pushparaj. The first appellate court, however, held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving that the suit property was the ancestral joint Hindu Family Property. Both the courts however concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the sale deed executed by Soma and Girji on 5.8.1968 was without legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate and was not binding on the plaintiffs. The courts further held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the transaction dated 5.8.1968 was not a sale transaction 3 but was a loan transaction. While recording the aforesaid findings, both the courts considered the evidence on record, to hold that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that Soma utilized the consideration of Rs.2000/- for contesting the gram panchayat elections and also to satisfy his vices. The courts held that on a reading of the sale deed and on an appreciation of the evidence on record, it was clear that the sale deed was executed for the purpose of repaying the loan, for the expenses of agricultural field and maintenance of joint family. The findings recorded by both the courts on the aforesaid issues are clear findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP