1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.86 OF 2007 Sudhakar s/o Manikrao Nikkam, age: 54 years, Occ: Service & Agril., R/o Dhabadi, at present Chikhli, Tq.Badnapur, District Jalna. Appellant Versus 1 Vasant s/o Manikrao Nikkam, age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Dabhadi, Tq. Badnapur, District Jalna. 2 Kalimuddin s/o Alfuddin Farooqui, age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture & Business, R/o Dabhadi, Tq.Badnapur, District Jalna. Respondents Mr.R.K.Jadhavar, advocate for the appellant. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 09.09. 2009. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments delivered by both the Courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit claiming declaration that the sale deed executed on 21.02.1997 by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 be declared as null and void as well as for injunction restraining 2 defendants from disturbing plaintiff’s possession over the suit property. Plaintiff and defendant no.1 are real brothers. According to the plaintiff, there was partition of the property between them and partition deed was reduced into writing on 18.02.1992. According to him, land G.No.4 was divided in four equal shares and plaintiff and defendant no.1, both received two shares each. On the basis of partition, entries were also recorded in the revenue record. However, defendant no.1 has alienated the share, which came to be allotted in favour of plaintiff, by executing a sale deed in favour of defendant no.2. Plaintiff, therefore, approached the Court seeking relief, as stated above. 3 Defendants appeared and controverted the contentions raised by plaintiff. Defendants have admitted the partition but denied execution of partition deed on 18.02.1992. According to the defendant no.1, the partition deed is not signed by him. According to defendants, land, that has been sold to defendant no.2, is belonging to defendant no.1. Defendants, thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4 On the basis of pleadings, trial Court framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that plaintiff has not established his case. The suit, as such, came to be dismissed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was subjected to challenge at the instance of plaintiff in Regular Civil Appeal NO.42/2001, which came to be heard and disposed of by District Judge, Jalna, who was pleased to dismiss the same. 5 I have perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts 3 below and heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for appellant. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding that plaintiff has failed to establish that land sold by defendant no.1 had fallen to his share and same was in his possession. It has been observed by the Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to describe the property, which has fallen to his share with all necessary specifications. The finding recorded by the trial Court, which is based on appreciation of evidence, has been confirmed by the first appellate Court. In my opinion, the reasons recorded by both the Courts below are proper and do not call for interference in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 6 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa8607