: 1 : SD 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 JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.771 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.771 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.771 OF 2007 Shantabai Dhondiram Shinde ...Appellant V/s. Balwant Govind Gaikwad & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.N.J. Patil, Advocate, for the Appellant. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the appellant. Appellant is the original 2nd plaintiff. The original 1st defendant was the husband of the appellant whose name came to be deleted after his demise. Suit was filed by the present appellant and respondent Nos.3 and 4 for partition and separate possession. 2. The case of the appellant and other plaintiffs was that the suit land was ancestral property and the 1st defendant sold the suit land to the 2nd defendant without their being any legal necessity. The suit is for partition and separate possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that suit property was ancestral or joint family property. The said : 2 : finding has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. 3. The submission of the Advocate for the appellant is that there was material on record to show that the suit property was not the exclusive property of the original 1st defendant. He submitted that even according to the findings recorded by the Courts below, the 1st defendant was an agricultural tenant in respect of the suit property and therefore the sale deed executed by him in favour of the 2nd defendant was in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 4. The first submission cannot be accepted as the finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below is that when the appellant stepped into witness box, she failed to state that the suit property was a joint family property. The Courts below found that there was nothing in the deposition of the appellant to show that the suit property was ancestral or joint family property. There is no reason to interfere with the said findings of fact. 5. In sofar as second contention is concerned, the same was never raised in the plaint. There is no challenge in the plaint to the alienation made by the : 3 : 1st defendant on the ground of bar created by the statute. 6. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]