1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 924 OF 2007 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICTION NO. 1671 OF 2007 IN S.A. NO. 924 OF 2007 Smt. Janabai Dinkar Bandal, since deceased through Lrs: (1)- Shri Shankar D. Bandal & Ors. .. Appellants. V/s. Shri Ramdas Bapu Salunke & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr. S.A. Pawar for the Appellants. Mr. V. G. Peshave for Respondent No.1. --- CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 18th September, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The plaintiff had filed R.C.Suit No. 82 of 1992 for partition and separate possession. The suit was decreed, holding that she was having 1/8th share in the suit property; while defendant No.1 was having half share in the property. The said decree was challenged by the Defendant No.1 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 313 of 2002. The Appeal was allowed and the suit filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant 2 was dismissed. Hence, the second Appeal by the legal heirs of Plaintiff. 3. Admitted facts are that one Kundlik Salunke had two sons namely, Gangaram and Bapu. Defendant No.1 Ramdas is son of Bapu. The Plaintiff Janabai and her three sisters are daughters of Gangaram. Kundlik and his two sons had some ancestral property. Gangaram died in the year 1947. Whole of the joint family property was in possession of the Defendant No.1 – Ramdas, after the death of his father Bapu. According to Janabai, the suit lands were joint family properties of Gangaram and Bapu and she, being legal heir of Gangaram, has share in the property and accordingly she claimed partition in the property. 4. According to Defendant No.1- Ramdas the partition has taken place between his father Bapu and Gangaram and Gangaram had sold away all his property during his life time and therefore, the Plaintiff cannot now claim any partition of the property in possession of the Defendant No.1. 5. The first Appellate Court after dealing with the evidence held that the partition had taken place and therefore, Plaintiff cannot take any share in the property in possession of the Defendant. It was also held that Gangaram had sold away the property which he had got as his share. Some of the property including 3 agricultural land and house were sold by him to the husband of the plaintiff. In view of this material on record, there is nothing to show that the Judgment passed by the first Appellate Court is perverse or against the record. In fact, if the partition would not have taken place during the life time of Gangaram, who died in 1947, on his death, the joint family property would go to his brother Bapu alone as sole surviving co-parcener. In 1947, the daughters of Gangaram could not claim any share in the suit property. The female heirs of a deceased coparcener got the right of succession under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, except in case of a widow of a coparcener, who was entitled to certain rights under the Hindu Woman’s Right to Property Act, 1937. No other female would be entitled to get share under that Act. 6. Taking into consideration these circumstances and the fact that certain property was sold by Gangaram to some persons, including the husband of the Plaintiff, the first Appellate Court was right. No question of law is involved in the present Appeal. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. 7. Since the Appeal itself is dismissed, the civil application No. 1671 of 2007 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)