1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.171 OF 2003 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2003 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1542 OF 2008 Shri Pandurang Rama Thakur Since deceased through his heirs 1 Shivram Pandurang Thakur & Ors. ...Appellants. v. Shri Kashinath Balu Thakur & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. R.D.Suryawanshi, adv. For the Appellants. Mr. Ajay Rai i/by S.H.Joshi, advs. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 29th July , 2009 P.C.: CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1542 OF 2008 Heard. For the reasons given in the application, delay is condoned and legal heirs of the deceased respondent no.2 are allowed to be brought on record. Amendment be made in the appeal immediately. Application stands disposed off. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 They have taken me through the judgments of both the 2 Courts. Admittedly, one Chahu had two sons, namely, Rama and Chango. Chango died issue-less in 1943 leaving behind his widow, Tulsibai. Rama had died prior to Chango. He had two sons namely, Balu and plaintiff Pandu. Defendant nos.1 and 2 are sons and defendant no.3 is the daughter of the deceased Balu. Balu died sometimes in 1970. Plaintiff Pandu filed Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 1996 seeking partition and separate possession to the extent of half share in the suit properties. According to the defendants, partition had taken place about 60 years before and there was no joint family nor there was any joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants. Suit came to be decreed. Against that judgment, defendants preferred Civil Appeal No.149 of 1999. That appeal was allowed by the District Judge. Hence, the Second Appeal by the original plaintiff. 3 Paragraph 3 of the plaint shows that the 12 suit properties were held by Chango and after his death, his widow Tulsibai was recorded as owner of the same. Later on, she sold all those lands to different persons. Some of those properties were purchased by Balu father of the defendants during the period from 1949 to 1951. In 1955 plaintiff also purchased three different properties shown in paragraph 4 under the registered sale deed. It is material to note that even though 3 number of properties may be large, actually area of each of the properties was infact very small. Properties purchased by Balu were recorded in his individual name while property purchased by the plaintiff was recorded in his name. They were shown separate owners of the same. None of the suit properties was ever jointly held by this family. All the suit properties had come to the plaintiff or to his brother Balu by way of purchase. The Trial Court noted that in 1969 statement was made by Pandu and confirmed by Balu that they were holding and cultivating certain lands jointly. However, the Appellate Court interpreted the statements and came to conclusion that they had not admitted that they were holding properties jointly, but they were only trying to state that particular survey numbers were being cultivated by them not as tenants but as owners and the enquiry was about two different properties, one of which was purchased by Balu and another was purchased by the plaintiff. Judgment of the Appellate Court reveals that plaintiff, who was expected to know all the facts and circumstances never entered into witness box. On his behalf, his son Gajanan was examined. He admitted that since his childhood, he had seen his father and his uncle living separately. There was no evidence to show that they were ever members of the joint family or that they were holding any joint family property. 4 4 On perusal of the judgments of two Courts, it is clear that both the Courts analysed and interpreted the evidence and came to certain conclusions on appreciation of the evidence. The Appellate Court came to conclusion that there was no joint family or joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any question of law involved in the present appeal. 5 In the result, appeal stands dismissed. 6 The learned counsel for the appellant makes a prayer that ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from creating third party interest, which is in operation since 2003 may be continued for a further period of eight weeks. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection. Therefore, ad-interim stay shall continue for a further period of eight weeks. 7 As the appeal itself is disposed off, civil application no.210 of 2003 for injunction does not survive and stands disposed off. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)