* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.58 OF 2009 Rangnath Tukaram Kadam & Ors. .......Appellants Vs. Sou. Ranjana Tukaram Kale & Ors. .......Respondents Mr. R.S. Kate, adv. For appellants. Mr. Dilip Bodake, adv. for respondents. CORAM : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. DATED : 25th November, , 2009 P.C. : 1. The Second Appeal challenges concurrent finding of facts of the courts below in a suit for partition filed by respondents no.1 to 4. Respondent no.5 is the original defendant no.4. She is mother of respondents no.1 to 4 and appellant no.3. Appellants no.1 and 2 are the original defendants no.1 and 2. Appellant no.4 is original defendant no.5 who has purchased two of the properties standing in the names of appellants no.1 and 2. The impugned judgment and order is a common order of the District Court, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.639 of 2003 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 640 of 2003. The present appeal relates to dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 639 of 2003. Respondent * 2 * no.5 is the original defendant no.4. The factual matrix of the case is as under : . Respondents no.1 to 4 filed Suit No.108 of 1998 for partition and separate possession in respect of the property situate at gat No.953/2A, 953/2B and 953/1. Appellant no.4, the purchaser filed Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 1997 for an injunction simplicitor for protection of his alleged possession of property No. 953/2A and 953/2B. The defence of appellants no.1 to 3 to the suit for partition was that the properties at Gat No.953/2A and 953/2B were purchased by appellant no.3 out of his separate income in the names of his children i.e. appellants no.1 and 2, who at the relevant time were minors. Later, appellant no.3 sold the two properties to appellant no.4. Appellant no.4 claims to be the bonafide purchaser of the two properties. As regards the third property of Gat No.953/1, respondent no.5 took up a defence that the property is her self acquired property. She did not claim any share in the other two properties. Similarly, appellants no.1 to 3 did not claim any share in the property claimed by respondent no.5. Both the courts below, on consideration of the evidence led in the suit, held that appellants no.1 to 3 and respondent no.5 failed to establish that the properties claimed by them were their separate properties and decreed the suit for partition. The evidence before the court establishes that neither appellant no.3 nor respondent no.5 had sufficient means to acquire the respective properties. The court further took note of the fact that there was sufficient income from the joint properties available for purchasing the suit * 3 * properties at the time the same were purchased. These concurrent findings of facts, both supported by the evidence on record have attained finality and the same cannot be interfered with at this stage. There is also no substantial question of law arising for consideration of this court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]