NILKANTHA KRISHNARAO VAIDYA Vs. SUNIL DNYANESHWAR VAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Second Appeal, the original defendant is challenging the reversing judgment delivered by the Appellate Court. The present respondent filed a suit against him for declaration of ownership, for removal of encroachment of Chhapri from it and for permanent injunction.

(2.) In this background I have heard Advocate Shri Thengre, for appellant / original defendant and Advocate Shri Saboo, for respondent.

(3.) Advocate Shri Thengre has contended that donor Krushnarao is the natural father of the present appellant and appellant therefore was entitled to succeed to the suit property. He contended that trial court has rightly observed that certified copy of the gift deed could not have been relied upon as it was not produced after seeking permission and ingredients of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act were not substantiated. He invites attention to the findings given by the trial court. He points out that the lower Appellate court has in this background for the first time relied upon the original gift deed produced before it and according to him such reliance is misconceived and also unsustainable. He therefore states that the second appeal needs to be allowed.