1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 178/2010 (Ramdas Sakharam Sahare VERSUS Chatur Sakharam Sahare (Dead) thr. Lrs Yashoda wd/o Chatur Sahare & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. S.C. Deo, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 28, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the sale-deed executed by her father Sakharam in favour of her brother- defendant no.1 was void and illegal as it was obtained by playing fraud on Sakharam. Similarly, the plaintiff has sought a declaration that the gift-deed executed by his father Sakharam in favour of his other brother i.e. Defendant no.2 in the year 1991 was also void and illegal. It was the plaintiff’s case that his father was not keeping well and taking advantage of his illness, the defendant nos.1 and 2 had fraudulently got the sale-deed and the gift-deed executed in their favour. The plaintiff sought partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property as according to the 2 plaintiff, the property was the ancestral property in the hands of Sakharam. The defendant nos.1 and 2 denied the claim of the plaintiff and also denied that the suit property was the ancestral property. It was pleaded by the defendants that Sakharam was the absolute owner of the suit properties and had every right to sell or gift the same to his sons. The defendants denied that due to the illness of Sakharam, they fraudulently got the sale-deed and the gift deed executed in their favour by playing fraud on Sakharam. According to them, both the deeds were valid documents and they had become the owners of the suit property in pursuance of the same. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the suit property was not the ancestral property on Sakharam but, was absolutely owned by Sakharam. For recording this finding, the Courts considered the admission of the plaintiff himself. The finding on this aspect is a pure finding of fact based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. The plaintiff had utterly failed in proving that the defendant nos.1 and 2 had fraudulently got the sale-deed and the gift-deed executed in their favour by playing fraud on Sakharam. The Courts considered that those 3 two documents were registered documents and after the execution of this documents in favour of the defendant nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff had issued a notice not only to defendant nos.1 and 2 but, also to Sakharam stating therein that the sale-deed and the gift-deed may be cancelled as they were obtained by playing fraud on Sakharam. Sakharam had replied to this notice issued by the plaintiff and had denied that the defendant nos.1 and 2 had fraudulently obtained the sale-deed and gift-deed from him. The Courts rightly appreciated the evidence on record to hold that the gift-deed and the sale-deed executed in favour of the defendants were valid documents. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure 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 is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE