1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2002 Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Babulal Appellant Versus Smt. Naginabee w/o Mithubhbai Shaikh & others Respondents Mr. S.L. Bhapkar, advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.V. Chandole, advocate holding for Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, advocate for Respondents 1 and 2. ===== CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 1st October, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit claiming decree of declaration that the sale- deeds executed by defendants are not binding on him as well as for partition and separate possession of the ancestral property. Plaintiff comes to the court with a case that the plaintiff and defendants are from nearest Bhavaki and the suit property is their ancestral property. It is contended by plaintiff that he has share in the ancestral property and he has been wrongly 2 deprived of his share because of certain acts of the defendants. As such, plaintiff claims 1/4th share in the agricultural property as well as 1/3rd share in the house property. 3 Defendants have opposed the suit presented by plaintiff by filing written statement. According to them, they are in possession their respective share in the property since 1930 onwards and plaintiff is not entitled to seek relief as claimed by him. 4 Trial court after recording evidence of the parties did not find favour with the case put up by plaintiff and as such dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dt. 4-11-1997. Plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, approached the first appellate court by filing Regular Civil Appeal no. 16/1998 which came to be heard and disposed of by the 4th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar who was pleased to dismiss the same on 3-12-2001. 5 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Suit instituted by plaintiff itself is misconceived. The concept of joint family property and any one amongst the family being Karta is unknown to Mohamedan Law. Suit itself rests on wrong foundation. The courts below 3 were justified in turning down the case put up by plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* dyb/sa170.02.odt