:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.503 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.503 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.503 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1219 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1219 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1219 OF 2008 Shri Chandrakant Kashinath Baradkar ...Appellant. v. Shri Kashinath Sambhu Baradkar ...Respondents. Mr.K.B.Sonwalkar , adv. for the Appellant. Mr. Utgikar , adv. for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 21st July, 2008. DATE: 21st July, 2008. DATE: 21st July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The appellant before this Court is the original plaintiff. The defendant no.1 is his father. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are brothers. Defendant no.4 is the mother and the defendant no.5 is the sister of the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit land gat nos.86, 138 and 646. According to him, the land gat nos.138 and 646 are ancestral properties of the joint family and the land gat no.86 was purchased by the defendant no.1 from the income of the joint family. The defendants admitted that the land gat no.138 and 646 were joint family properties but they denied that gat no.86 was purchased from income of the joint family property. According to :2: them, there was no such income of the joint family out of which, any such property could be purchased. It was contended that the defendant no.1 was in service of fair price shop of the Gram Panchayat and from the salary income, he had saved some amount and with that saving, he had purchased land gat no.86. Therefore, it is his self-acquired property. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the joint family was holding two agricultural lands and even if the defendant no.1 was earning from his salary, that income was also merged with the income from the joint family property and, therefore, the land gat no.86 purchased by the defendant no.1 should be treated as joint family property. Accordingly, the trial Court passed the decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff to the extent of 1/6th share in all the properties. 3. Defendant no.1 preferred regular civil appeal no.29 of 2005 challenging the decree passed by the trial Court only in respect of gat no.86. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court only to the extent of gat no.86. The Appellate Court noted that the joint family was holding only one ana share in land gat no.646, which was fallow land and the another property held by the family was gat no.138 admeasuring only 14 gunthas and its land revenue assessment was 10 paise indicating that the land was of poor quality. After referring to the evidence, the :3: Appellate Court came to conclusion that there was no income worth name from the joint family property and that income was not even sufficient to maintain the family. The Appellate Court came to conclusion that the defendant no.1 had purchased gat no.86 out of the savings of his salary. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the original plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. After going through the judgments of both the Courts below and particularly, the reasons given by the first appellate court, it is difficult to find any fault with the same. No question of law is involved in the second appeal, therefore, the appeal stands dismissed summarily. 5. In the result, civil application also stands disposed off. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)