1 S.A.No.680/10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.680 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 14.12.2010. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit land. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Dharashive, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that the Courts below were in error in negativing the case of the 2 S.A.No.680/10 present appellant. As the present appellant is the legal heir of deceased father, the appellant is entitled for a share in the property and as such the Court should have decreed the suit to the extent of her share. Mr.Dharashive, learned counsel further contended that there is no evidence on record to substantiate that her father died prior to 1955. In fact, there is record to show that he died in the year 1958. 3. Per contra, Mr.S.P.Urgunde and Mr.Golewar, learned counsels for the Respondents contend that both the Courts on appreciation of evidence have come to the conclusion that plaintiff does not have any right in the suit property. Even Dagdu in the year 1974 had sold the property to which the present plaintiff never objected. As per statement of plaintiff herself, it can be proved that the father of the plaintiff died prior to 1955. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments. It is a matter of record that in the year 1974, Dagdu had sold the properties allotted to him. The 3 S.A.No.680/10 plaintiff did not take any action in respect of the same. Moreover, the deposition of plaintiff herself clarifies the position that her father died prior to 1955. As the father of the plaintiff died prior to 1955, leaving behind son, the plaintiff could not claim any share in the suit property. The factum regarding the year of death of the father of the plaintiff is based on appreciation of evidence. The Courts below have properly appreciated evidence in this regard. There is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence. 5. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.14.12.2010. asp/office/sa680.10 4 S.A.No.680/10