1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.163 OF 2010 Laxman Dhondu Nate ..Appellant Vs. ShantaramDhondu Nate and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.Shashikant Mangale, for appellants None for respondents. ......... CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 9 th JUNE, 2010. P.C. : This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19 th July, 2007. passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ratnagiri in Civil Appeal No.121 of 2004 arising from the judgment and decree dated 26 th October, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Deorukh, District Ratnagiri, in Regular Civil Suit No.53 of 2001. By the impugned judgments, the Courts below decreed the suit instituted by the plaintiff for partition and for declaration. The courts below declared that the Will dated 17 th October, 1996 executed by Dhondu Daji Nate is illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff. The courts below further declared that the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and defendant nos. 2 to 7 have 1/3 rd share in the properties. 2] Heard Mr.Shashank Mangale, learned counsel for the appellant. He submitted that the courts below committed error in decreeing the suit instituted 163-10.sxw 2 by the plaintiff in so far as the land which was bequeathed by Dhondu Daji Nate in favour of defendant no.1 under the Will dated 17 th October, 1996. He submitted that the certificate issued under Section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was standing exclusively in the name of Dhondu Daji Nate. The civil court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the said certificate. It was also not open to the civil court to go into the question whether the properties bequeathed by Dhondu were self acquired properties or ancestral properties. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan Mangu Teli Vs. Bhagirathibai Narayan Rahate, dated 9 th December, 2003 passed in Second Appeal No.468 of 1986 as also the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhima Aba Rade & anr. Vs. Thakubai Maruti Rade and ors., 2007 (6) Bom.C.R.408. 3] Perusal of the impugned judgments indicates that the suit properties were initially cultivated by father and uncle of Dhondu Daji Nate and after their death, Dhondu Nate inherited the suit properties. After the death of Dhondu Nate, plaintiff and defendants started cultivating the suit properties. As per the mutation entry at Exhibit 66, it is clear that after the death of Daji Dhondu Nate, lands bearing survey Nos.23/6, 20/14, 18/14, 86/11, 19/4, 19/11, 95/18, 74/11 were mutated in the name of his son Dhondu Daji Nate. The mutation entry at exhibit no.67 also shows that after the death of Sona Ramu Nate, the lands were transferred in the name of his nephew Dhondu Daji Nate as his heir. Therefore, it cannot be said that these properties were self acquired properties of Dhondu Daji Nate. There properties were inherited by Dhondu Daji Nate from his father Daji Dhondu Nate and his uncle Sona Ramu Nate. The courts below also recorded that the appellant and defendant no.1 did not deny in the written 163-10.sxw 3 statement that these properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and were not self acquired properties of Dhondu Daji Nate. In view of this, the courts below decreed the suit instituted by the plaintiff and declared that the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and defendant nos.2 to 7 have 1/3 rd share each and that the Will dated 17 th October, 1996 executed by Dhondu Daji Nate in favour of defendant no.1 is not binding upon the plaintiff. 4] I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the courts below. In so far as the judgment in the case of Narayan Mangu Teli (supra) is concerned, in that case this court specifically recorded findings that the lands were acquired by Mangu Balu Teli alone and the documentary evidence on record also confirmed the fact that the said lands were purchased by Mangu Balu Teli under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In the present case, as indicated earlier, Dhondu Daji Nate inherited the suit properties from his uncle Sona Ramu Nate and father Daji Dhondu Nate. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for appellant on the said authority is of no assistance to the appellant. 5] In so far as the reliance placed in the case of Bhima Aba Rade (supra) is concerned, in that case the issue, as to whether the properties acquired were of ancestral nature or of self acquired nature, was not involved. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said decision is of no assistance to the appellant. 6] Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in view of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 the courts below could not go in to the question as to whether the certificate under Section 163-10.sxw 4 32-M was validly issued or not. It is submitted that under the provisions of the said Act, the certificate under Section 32-M conclusive evidence of the ownership of the defendant no.1. I do not find any substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. In my opinion, the courts below have rightly recorded the findings that the suit properties were not self acquired properties of Dhondu Daji Nate. In view of this, even if the certificate under Section 32-M stood in the name of defendant no.1 alone, it does not mean that the suit properties are his self acquired properties. 7] In the result, Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and the same deserves to be dismissed. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, no orders are necessary in the Civil Application. Civil Application stands disposed of. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] 163-10.sxw