1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.492/2009 SMT. VANDANA BHARADE & ANOTHER VERSUS..VS.. TANABAI TIMAJI BHARADE Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 2 /12 / 2010 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate share in the property left behind by her son Dhanraj. The plaintiff/ respondent – Tanabai was the mother of Dhanraj and the mother in law of the defendant no.1 Vandana and Grandmother of defendant no.2 Chandrashekhar Dhanraj , the plaintiff and the defendants were residing together. Dhanraj died on 16.11.2001. After the death of Dhanraj, according to the plaintiff, defendant no.1 had forcibly taken the possession of the suit field from the plaintiff and hence she instituted the suit. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and further denied that the parties were residing together with Dhanraj. It was pleaded that the suit field initially belonged to one Goma the paternal uncle of Dhanraj. According to the defendants since Goma was unmarried and died issue-less, he had given the suit fields to Dhanraj. It was further stated that the plaintiff and her husband Timaji had written a document in 2 the presence of panchas wherein they had stated that they would not claim any right title in the suit property and Dhanraj would not claim any right and interest in the family properties. Both the courts on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit field as she was the class I heir being the mother of deceased Dhanraj. Since Dhanraj had died intestate the courts held that the plaintiff and the defendants no.1 and 2 were each entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit properties. The courts held that after Goma gave the properties to Dhanraj, he became the absolute owner of the properties and after his death, since he died intestate the plaintiff and the defendants had equal share in the suit property. The courts further held that the defendants had been unsuccessful in proving that there was an agreement between Dhanraj and his father Timaji that Dhanraj would not claim any properties of Timaji and Timaji and his other sons would not claim any properties which came to Dhanraj from Goma. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts, based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Since they do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.