1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 617 OF 2008 Shubhangi Vijay Manjrelkar @ Shubhangi Hari Amberkar ........Appellant versus Shantaram Hari Amberkar & ors........ Respondents. Mr. Milind Parab Counsel for the Appellant Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Sr. Counsel with Sachin Prabhu, learned counsel for the respondents CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 24th NOVEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Milind Parab, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Walawalkar, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1. The appellant is the original plaintiff. Her suit for partition and separate possession came to be dismissed. Lower Appellate Court confirmed this decree in an appeal at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff. 2. Krishnaji, the grand father of appellant and the respondent no.1 was the tenant in the suit property. After the death of Krishnaji, suit property came in the hand of Hari, father of appellant and respondent no.1. Hari partitioned this property in four shares and kept one share for himself and other three 2 shares were given to his wife Laxmi and two sons namely respondent no.1 and respondent no.2's husband Arvind. Subsequently Hari bequeathed his ¼ share in favour of respondent no.1 Shantaram. 3. The property in the hand of Hari being ancesstral property and the appellant/plaintiff being married before 1994, she is not entitled to any share in the property in ancestral property. At the most she could have claimed share in the property of her father Hari. However, Hari disposed of his share in favour of respondent no.1 by executing a will. In these facts and circumstances, the lower courts below correctly held that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to partition and separate possession in the suit property. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R.V. More, J.)