( 1 ) sa213.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2996 OF 2010 Nathu Dhondiba Bagul (Deceased) .. Appellant Through his LRs. Versus Sonabai Baburao Durgude (Dead) & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.N. Lokhande i/b. Mr. B.V. Wagh, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 27.09.2011 P.C. :- 1. This appeal is filed for challenging the judgment and order dated 18.01.2007 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No.480 of 2000, in which the appellants were original defendant No.2's legal representatives. 2. The facts leading to this litigation in short can be stated as under :- 3. One Baburao had certain ancestral property. This property is subject matter of the suit. Baburao had two wives – Sonabai (original plaintiff No.1) and Tulsabai (original defendant No.1). Sonabai had one ( 2 ) sa213.11 daughter Yashodabai (plaintiff No.2). Tulsabai had two daughters – Shevantabai and Jaiwantabai (original defendant Nos. 4 and 5). Yashwant is son of Yashodabai, who was added as plaintiff No.3 due to Yashodabai’s death during the pendency of the suit. Sonabai and her daughter, as mentioned above, filed suit way back in 1989 for partition and separate possession of the suit land. They claimed that they are entitled to one half share of the suit property because according to them the ancestral property of deceased Baburao who died in 1960 ought to be divided equally amongst Sonabai and Tulsabai. They also mentioned that original defendant No.1 – Tulsabai had transferred part of the land in the name of her brother Nathu, who subsequently sold the same to one Karbhari. Natu is defendant No.2 and Karbhari is defendant No.3. 4. After filing of the suit though summons were served on the defendants, no one came before the Court to oppose the suit. Still learned Judge of the Trial Court dismissed the suit because he held that original plaintiff No.1 Sonabai could not prove her case. Original plaintiff No.1-Sonabai then went in appeal and during the pendency of the appeal she too died and Yashwant – original plaintiff No.3 remained the only appellant. The learned Judge of the Appeal Court noted that since the evidence of original plaintiff No.1 has gone unchallenged and in view of certain documentary evidence, she could ( 3 ) sa213.11 prove that the suit property was ancestral property of Baburao. He also noted that though Baburao intended to divorce Sonabai and Tulsabai, the divorce did not occur and the two wives of Baburao stayed with him till last (till his death). He, therefore, observed in view of this factual aspect of the case on Baburao’s death that notional partition would take place. He, therefore, held that one half portion of the suit land would go to two wives of Baburao and one half would go to Baburao. He said that one half share of Baburao would then get divided amongst three wives and three daughters. In view of this, the share of wives would come to 5/16th. He held that each daughter would get 1/8th share. He further held that in view of the death of original plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2, the plaintiff No.3 would be entitled to 7/16th share. On the other hand he held that the original defendant Nos.4 and 5 would get 1/8th share in the suit land each. Accordingly, he decreed the suit to that effect. 5. Unfortunately, for the appellants, their predecessor-deceased Nathu- and other co-defendants did not file written statement and therefore did not oppose the suit. The evidence of the original plaintiff No.1 went uncontroverted on record. The findings of the learned District Judge, therefore, cannot be said to be incorrect. There arises no substantial question of law ( 4 ) sa213.11 in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, connected civil application does not survive and stands disposed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/SEP11/sa213.11ok