: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.203 OF 2009 Ananda Nana Gavali since deceased through his LRs 1. Indubai Ananda Gavali .. Appellants V/s. Chandrakant Ananda Shivdas .. Respondent ..... Mr. Sandesh Patil for the appellants Mr. Pratap Patil for the respondent ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 19TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. : 1. Appellants herein have instituted suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad for declaration that the Sale Deed dated 21 st May, 1985 purported to have been executed by Nana father of the present appellants in favour of respondent is forged and fabricated and that the appellants are the owners in respect of the said property. This suit was tried by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad : 2 : being Regular Civil Suit No.271 of 1999 and that the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division by judgment and decree dated 11 th November, 2005 dismissed the suit. Against this judgment and decree, the present appellants instituted Regular Civil Appeal being Appeal No.108 of 2005 in the Court of District Judge-2, Karad. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 13 th November, 2008. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellants have filed this appeal. I have extensively heard learned advocates on both the sides. I have perused the text of the plaint. In the plaint, unfortunately, the date on which so called Sale Deed executed is not mentioned and the averments made in para 3 are absolutely of a general nature. The appellants claimed that very recently i.e. little prior to institution of the suit, they realized that the respondent is enjoying the suit property and cultivating the same. 3. Learned trial Judge considered the evidence placed before him and came to the conclusion that appellants : 3 : have failed to show that the said Sale Deed was forged and fabricated. It is the stand of the appellants that Nana used to put mere thumb impression and that is how the Sale Deed be looked as forged and fabricated. It was also argued by learned advocate Mr. Patil for the appellants that the said Sale Deed was not exhibited in the course of trial. This argument is not available to the appellants because they themselves came out with the case that the said Sale Deed is said to have been executed in favour of the respondent and therefore execution of a document in the nature of a Sale Deed as alleged was the admitted position and it was necessary for the appellants to bring cogent evidence to show that the said Sale Deed is forged and fabricated. The appellants have not been able to place before the Court adequate material to show that the said Sale Deed is forged and fabricated. The stand of the appellants that the appellants very recently came to know about enjoyment by the respondent few days prior to the filing of the suit cannot be accepted because the respondent claims that the Sale Deed is executed in the year 1985 and the suit has been filed in June, 1999 i.e. After a lapse of 14 years. In my view, : 4 : evidence placed by the appellants before the Court to make out the case have turned out to be insufficient and for the said reason, appellants failed to place before the Court appropriate material in support of their case. To that extent no interference is required in the impugned judgment as even otherwise no substantial question of law could be raised. 4. It was lastly argued by learned advocate Mr. Patil that there was no need for both the Courts to refer the findings that respondent is in possession of the suit property. In my view, it was absolutely necessary for the learned trial Judge as well as the learned District Judge to consider the facts which came before them on account of the allegations which were placed by before the Court by both the sides. The observation that the respondent is in possession for a substantial long time i.e. from the year 1985 to 1999 and till the institution of the suit goes to show that he is in possession on account of some valid reasons. In my view, no defect can be found in the manner in which both the Courts have dealt with the question of possession of the respondent in the respective judgments. : 5 : 5. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, no interference is required in the Second Appeal as no substantial question of law is involved. Hence, the order. ORDER . Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. . In view of this, Civil Application No.784 of 2009 is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)