( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff who lost in both the Courts below.

( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this appeal are as follows : plaintiff is the daughter of one Marotrao Rahate. She was married to one i laribhau Admane. Marotrao had only one son who predeceased him. Marotrao died in the year 1955 leaving behind him the suit property. Defendants 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the daughters of said Marotrao. Plaintiff is also one of the daughters. The suit property was the self acquired property of said Marotrao. Plaintiff submits that she is in possession of one block while defendant No. 7 Tulsabai is also in possession of the suit house. Defendants 1 and 9 are also living in some portion of the suit house. Defendant No. 1 is the mother of the plaintiff. Plaintiff submits that Tulsabai, one of her sisters was living with defendant No. 1 Parvatabai who is also in occupation of the part of the suit property. It is her case that it was agreed that in lieu of their share each of the sisters will occupy part of the suit house. Plaintiff contends that she has learnt that Gift Deed has been executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 10 Manohar. It is her contention that the said gift deed has been brought about by exercise of undue influence over parvatabai. She claims share in the suit property.

( 3 ) PARVATABAI the mother of the plaintiff has filed her Written Statement. She admits the relationship. She admits that the suit property belonged to her husband Marotrao and that it was his self acquired property. She also admits that some property belonging to Marotrao was sold for the purpose of marriage of his daughters. Her contention is that she has become full owner of the suit property by virtue of the fact that she is in possession of the suit property when Hindu succession Act 1956 came into force. She denies that the gift deed executed by her in favour of defendant No. 10 was brought about by any undue influence.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 10 has filed his separate Written Statement. According to him he had never exercised any undue influence over Parvatabai, she had voluntarily executed the gift deed since she was being looked after by him. Rest of the defendants did not contest the suit.

( 5 ) LEARNED Judge of the trial Court found that the gift deed was not executed by Parvatabai under any undue influence as alleged. Parvatabai was in possession of the suit property. Gift deed is binding on the plaintiff and plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the suit property. Holding so he dismissed the suit. Learned Judge of the first appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved thereby Second Appeal is preferred. Second Appeal has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law : 'issue pertaining to application of section 14 of the Succession Act and presumption as available under the Registration Act are substantial. "

( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

( 8 ) THE pleadings made by the plaintiff are extremely strange and curious and cannot be comprehended. Para 9 of the plaint reads as follows : "9. The alleged gift deed is illegal and was brought into existence with an intention to defeat the legal and proper claims of the plaintiff and other defendants. At any rate, Parvatabai was not in possession of the said property in 1955 or in the year 1956 and as the succession to the estate of deceased Marotrao opened in the year 1955, immediately after death of marotrao on 6-7-1983, all daughters became owner along with parvatabai of the estate left behind by deceased Marotrao. " plaintiff claims that all daughters became owner in 1983. One does not understand what connection this year 1983 has with the question or controversy. Be that as it may. Plaintiff also contends that she having been born in Rahate family has 1/6th share in the suit property. It appears from pleadings i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document