1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 300/2008 (Dnyaneshwar Gunwantrao Wagh Vs. Gopalrao Jawale through L.Rs.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 23 rd JULY, 2008. Heard Shri Pathan for the appellant, and Ms. Yerlekar for the respondents. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the gift deed executed by his mother in favour of the defendant on 31/10/1986 should be cancelled. The plaintiff and the defendant are uterine brothers. It was the case of the plaintiff that his father had purchased the suit property in the name of his mother and the mother, therefore, was not absolute owner thereof and could not have made a gift of the same in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit for declaration and for possession of the suit property. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and further denied that the property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff in the name of his mother Gangubai. It 2 was, however, not denied that the plaintiff and the defendant were uterine brothers. According to the defendant, the gift deed executed by his mother in his favour on 31/10/1986 was valid as she was the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant, therefore, sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial and the appellate Courts, on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the gift deed executed by his mother Gangubai in favour of the defendant on 31/10/1986 was a sham and bogus document. The Courts further held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership over the suit property and in view of the aforesaid finding, both the Courts held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought in the suit. The suit of the plaintiff was, therefore, dismissed. The findings recorded by the Courts are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP