1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28/09/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed Suit for declaration and injunction contending that the father was protected tenant and on account of the death of the father, the plaintiff being the only son, would be entitled for the certificate under Section 32 (m) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act [ For short, “ BT and AL Act ” ] and the defendants being daughters would not have any right in view of the fact that the parties are tribles and the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act are not applicable. 2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the Suit. Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, 2 the learned counsel for the appellant contends that by explicit provision, the statute is not applicable to the tribles, then the principles enunciated therein can not be imported and made applicable to the tribles. He has further contended that the certificate under Section 32 (m) of the BT and AL Act would not vests any right in favour of the present respondents and accordingly it was wrongly issued. 3. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the Courts below have rightly relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madhu Kishwar V/s State of Bihar reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court – 1864 have rightly come to the conclusion that though in strict sense, the Act is not applicable but the principles analogous to the same would be made applicable. More over, no custom is proved on record. 4. The Judgments passed by the Courts below are based on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madhu Kishwar referred supra. More over, the certificate under Section 3 32 (m) of the BT and AL Act is also issued which states that the purchase price is paid by the defendant. 5. In view of the legal position as has been discussed by the Courts below, I do not find any error committed by the Courts below. In the result, the Second Appeal sans substantial question of law, is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 679.2009