( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1721 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12489 OF 2005 Chandrabhagabai w/o. Rustum Kharat .. Appellants and ors. Versus Waman Shankar Hiwale .. Respondent Shri S.B. Ghute, Advocate for the appellants. Shri L.V. Sangit, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 06.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.B. Ghute for the appellants and Adv. Shri L.V. Sangit for sole respondent. This Second Appeal is directed against declaration of plaintiff/respondent being co-owner of Gat No. 56 of village Shirala, Tq. Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna. 2. It is case of the appellants/respondents that ( 2 ) Khandu was their grand-father. Khandu had two sons – Shankar and Gangaram. The plaintiff/respondent is son of Shankar whereas present appellants/defendants were daughters of Gangaram. It is case of the appellants that Khandu (grandfather) owned Gat No.56, which is suit property and therefore he sought declaration that he is co-owner thereof. In this case the learned advocates for the parties have taken me through judgment on record. The learned advocate Shri Sangit has also taken me through depositions of the witnesses. The witnesses have stated that Khandu was holding certain properties. After death of Khandu, Shankar immediately died. The entire property was entered in the name of Gangaram, the father of present appellants. We get admission to that effect in the cross-examination of D.W.1-Chandrabhaga at Exh.34. However, she further stated that even from remaining land some portion of 15-16 acres land was given to her brother - present respondent. If we consider examination-in-chief of defendant Chandrabhaga and her witness, it is clear that they did not come with any case of partition. At-least, it is nowhere case that in Gat No.56 any portion was allotted to the share of ( 3 ) the plaintiff and it was exclusively allotted to the share of Gangaram and his daughter. 3. There is no dispute regarding relationship between the parties. No case of previous partition is made out. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that any substantial question of law arises in this matter. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Parties to bear their own costs. 4. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 12489 of 2005 does not survive. The Civil Application stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUL09/sa1721.05