1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.153 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.142 OF 2004 Hindurao Govinda Dalavi & Anr. ..... Appellants vs. Pandurang Rau Dalavi & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Amit B.Borkar, Advocate for appellants. Mr.M.R. Katikar, Advocate for respondents no.1.2,3,5 to 8. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 8th December, 2009. PC : 1. This Second Appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the Courts below as regards the nature of the suit properties and share of the parties therein for the purpose of partition. 2. Respondent no.1 filed a suit for partition of the suit properties consisting of agricultural lands and house properties. The appellants are the original defendants no.1 and 9. Respondents no.2 to 8 are the original defendants no.2 to 8, who have supported the claim of respondent no.1. The appellants disputed that the suit property is a joint family property. According to them, Govinda,their father was the exclusive owner of the suit properties, in view of the certificate issued by the authorities 2 under Section 24 of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 in respect of the suit lands. As regards the house property, there is no specific case made out of exclusive ownership. As against this, the respondents contended that father of the appellants, Govinda, was the karta of joint family and the certificate issued in his name was for and on behalf of all the family members. Both the Courts below have accepted the contention of respondents and decreed the suit. 3. Mr.Borkar, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that once there is a certificate issued under Section 24 of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, there cannot be any challenge to the same in view of Section 34-A of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. This is a wholly irrelevant argument as nobody had challenging issuance of the certificate in the name of Govinda. The question is not of issuance of the certificate but of the capacity of Govinda in holding the certificate. Both the Courts below considering the evidence of the parties have held that the property held by Govinda was for and on behalf of the family. The finding is supported by the evidence on record. It is a possible and probable view. Hence, the same is not to be interfered with in the present proceedings. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration of the Court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 3 4. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application No.142 of 2004 does not survive, the same is accordingly disposed off. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J.)