SA2591504100407.sxw 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2004 Murlidhar Uttamrao Paraskar and others. :: APPELLANTS -: Versus :- Sau. Meerabai Ganeshrao Tikar and another. :: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - CORAM: SMT. V. A. NAIK, J. DATED: 10th April, 2007. P.C. : 1. Heard Shri A. S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for partition and separate possession of1/4th share in the suit property. According to the plaintiff, her father Uttamrao was owner of the suit property and after his death, the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3 were put in equal 1/4th share in the suit property. Though it was the case of plaintiff that the property was ancestral property falling in the hands of Uttamrao, the claim of the plaintiff was denied by the defendants. It was the case of the defendants that the property was self acquired property of Uttamrao. According to SA2591504100407.sxw 2/3 the defendants the property was already partitioned during the life time of Uttamrao by oral partition. 3. The Courts below after appreciating the evidence tendered by the parties on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/12th share in the suit property. According to both the Courts, the defendants had failed to prove that a partition was effected between Uttamrao and his two sons during the life time of Uttamrao. The Courts then held that there was a notional partition between Uttamrao and his two sons before the death of Uttamrao. In view of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, Uttamrao and his both sons took 1/3rd share each in view of notional partition. According to both the Courts, since Uttamrao had two sons and two daughters, the plaintiff being one of the daughters of Uttamrao had 1/4th share in the 1/3rd share of Uttamrao which he received in view of the notional partition. The Courts, therefore, held that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/12th share in the suit property. 4. The findings recorded by both the Courts are clear findings of fact which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Though the Counsel for the appellants relied on the provisions of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act which were inserted by the Maharashtra amendment and came into force in the year 1994, a bare reading of the provisions of Section 29-A of the Act makes it clear that said provisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of Section 29-A of the Act, the daughter is entitled to an equal share as that of co- SA2591504100407.sxw 3/3 parceners in the property of a Hindu. In the instant case the Courts have not granted an equal share to the plaintiff by applying provisions of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act as inserted by the Maharashtra amendment but has only granted her 1/4th share in the 1/3rd share which was received by her father Uttamrao in view of the notional partition. 5. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE wwl