1 sa 181.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2010 Kondanbee W/o Habibsaheb Pathan .. Appellant Versus 1. Habibsaheb S/o Ismailsaheb Pathan and others .. Respondents Shri S. P. Urgunde, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri N. G. Kale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 30TH MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : . This is plaintiff's second appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of possession on the ground that the suit property was given to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 as prompt dower pursuant to the Siyanama dated 16th June, 1968. The defendant No. 1 who is husband of plaintiff has sold the suit property to defendant No. 2 on 31.11.1994 and had put the defendant No. 2 in possession of the property. The plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2001. The Trial Court dismissed the suit 2 sa 181.10 discardimg the evidence of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff to prove the Siyanama. So also held that the said alleged Siyanama does not appear to have been acted upon, as the name of the plaintiff was never recorded as owner and possessor of the suit land and that the defendant No. 2 is bonafide purchaser. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal of suit filed an appeal. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgments in the present second appeal. 02. Shri Urgunde, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that pursuant to the marriage the defendant No. 1 had given the suit property to the plaintiff as prompt dower (Mehar). Once the said property is given to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 as a Mehar, the defendant No. 1 had no right, title and interest to deal with the said property. As such, the sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 is null and void, as against the rights of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property. The learned counsel further contended that, the attesting witness to the Siyanama are not required to know the contents of the 3 sa 181.10 document and the contents of the Siyanama were proved by the evidence adduced on record. The Courts below improperly negatived the said evidence, when the plaintiff has proved the title. Thus, in such circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff should have been decreed. The defendant No. 2 cannot acquire any title pursuant to said sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1. 03. Per contra Shri Kale, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the defendants are bonafide purchasers. All along the property stood in the name of defendant No. 1. He was also in possession of the property. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have purchased the said property bonafide and in good faith. Even the plaintiff did not take action immediately. It is not disputed that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 reside together. According to him the Courts have concurrently arrived at the correct conclusion. 04. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the judgments. The plaintiff has based her claim on the ground that the said property was given to the plaintiff as prompt dower, meaning thereby that the said property was bestowed on the plaintiff at the said moment when 4 sa 181.10 the marriage took place. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that right since 1968 till the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff had at any material point of time been put in possession of the property or her name was recorded as a owner. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have bonafidely purchased the property from the defendant No. 1, who is husband of the plaintiff. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 reside together right since 1968 till filling of the suit. It would be against all probabilities of human conduct that the plaintiff would not know the transactions entered by the husband. Moreover, even it has been observed by both the Courts that the said alleged Siyanama does not seem to have been acted upon and witnesses also could not corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff. Taking into account the above aspects of the matter, the view taken by the Courts below is possible and plausible view. In that light of the matter, the second appeal being sans substantial question of law and as such, is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/March. 11