1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 1623/09 & 358/2010. Mrs. Jakiya Begum Siddi Abdul Rehman & ors.. ..Appellants/applicants. versus Gazanfar Rafik Ahmed Mikrajkar & ors.........Respondent. Mr. M.S. Kadu adv. for the Appellants/Applicants. Mr. Vijay Killedar adv. for the Respondent no.1. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI,J. DATED : 30th August, 2010. P.C.: 1. The appeal challenges concurrent findings on fact recorded by the learned Civil Judge, Senior ?Division, Alibaug dated 23-8-2006 thereby decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge-2 Alibaug dated 16-7-2009 thereby dismissing the appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the courts below have failed to take into consideration that earlier the property in survey no. 104/15 consisting of double storied house was alloted to Shamsunnisa. Therefore the learned courts below have failed to consider that aspect of the matter. He further submitted that the courts below have failed to take into 2 consideration that the plaintiff was the son of the daughter of deceased Siddi Hussain and since he was claiming through his mother, he could not have share equal to that of the appellant who was son of the deceased Siddi Hussain. 3. Perusal of the judgment would reveal that the courts below have concurrently found that the deceased Siddi Hussain died on 9-9-70 leaving behind his wife Badrunnisa and son Abdul Rahman and two daughters Khairunjnissa and Shamsunnissa. The present appellant claim through Abdul Rahman whereas the present respondent/plaintiff claims through Shamsunnissa. On the basis of the evidence that was led before the learned trial court, the learned trial court had held that the plaintiff was entitled to have share in the property as the son of Shamsunnissa and had alloted the share inter-se between the parties and according to the provisions of Muslim law. The said finding on fact is upheld in the appellant court. In so far as the contention of the appellant, regarding house property in survey no. 104/15 is concerned, it has concurrently been found that the said property was purchased by the deceased Badrunnissa from her own funds and that she gifted the property to the deceased Shamsunnissa. 4. In that view of the matter no error can be found in the concurrent findings on fact. No substantial question of law therefore arises. Second Appeal is therefore dismissed. 3 5. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal nothing survives in the Civil Applications and the same are also dismissed. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)