1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2004 Suryakant Maruti Gawali ... Appellant Vs. Sahadev alias Papa Laxman Gawali & Ors. Respondents Ms. Aarti Khadilkar, i/b. Bhave & Co.Advocates, for the appellant. Mr. Uday P.Warunjikar, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 29th September, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant before this Court is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 1982. According to the plaintiff, one Vyanku had 3 sons, namely, Mhaisu, Laxman and Maruti and one daughter Tulsabai. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 represent the branch of Laxman. Tulsabai died issueless. The defendant No.4 is a son of Mahaisu. Plaintiff himself, his 2 brothers and sister are children of Maruti. According to him, the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of Vyanku, who died in 1945. After his death, the property 2 was in possession of Laxman for and on behalf o the joint family. He filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the property. While the defendant No.4 supported him, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit. According to them, Vyanku had only one son, namely Laxman and one daughter, namely. Tulsabai. They denied that Mhaisu, and Martui awere also sons of Vyanku. They denied that plaintiff has any concern or relationship with deceased Vyanku. On this ground, they denied the right of the plaintiff to claim partition and separate possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff could not prove his relationship with the deceased Vyanku. The plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.22 of 1998. That appeal was also dismissed on the same ground. 3. The record reveals that the plaintiff relied on oral testimony of himself and two other witnesses, but there is no documentary evidence to support his claim that his father Maruti was son of deceased Vyanku. On the other hand, there are certain documents to show that Laxman was the only son of Vyanku. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact that the father of the plaintiff was not son of Vyanku and therefore, the suit was dismissed. No substantial question of law is involved in the present Appeal. There is nothing to show that findings of the 3 Courts below are perverse and totally against the record. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the appeal. 4. The Appeal stands dismissed. 5. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, both the C.A. No. 720/2009 and 1298/2009 do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)