1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 368 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5528 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 21.04.2010 Heard Mr. R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.1. 2. The only point that is canvassed by Mr. R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate before this Court is that so far as respondent No.2 is concerned, she is held to be daughter though illegitimate, of the appellant, he drew my attention to the discussion of the trial Court's Judgment in Para-14 and to the discussion of the First Appellate 2 Court's Judgment in Para-11. Both the Courts have held that respondent No.1 Sangeeta is the second wife of the appellant. Sangeeta has admitted this position. She has further stated on oath that respondent No. 2 was born to her from the appellant. Besides her words, there is also school record proved from the deposition of Shri. Tatyasaheb Sarvade, Head Master to show that respondent No.2 was shown to be daughter of the appellant while admitting in the school on 12-01-1999. 3. In this case, whether respondent No.2 is daughter of respondent No. 1 and the appellant is a question of fact and there is deposition of respondent No.1 which cannot be lightly set aside. No perversity is shown. It is not argued that in the piece of evidence though admissible is not considered. I 3 am not satisfied that this appeal raises substantial question of law so as to admit it. Hence the appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, Civil Application No. 5528 of 2009 does not survive and hence is disposed of, as such. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/APR10/sa368.09