1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.436 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.437 OF 2009 WITH SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO.3780 OF 2009 Kalabai Dhondiram Kandurkar . .. Applicants. Vs. Manubai Bapu Kandurkar & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Vijay Mane for the applicant/appellant. Mr.Bhushan Walimbe for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 24/11/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this civil application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of 441 days delay caused in filing the appeal. The appeal is directed against the decree of partition passed in a suit filed by respondent no.1, who is now about 80 years old. From perusal of the application, it is clear that certified copy of the impugned judgment was obtained by the applicant on 4.3.2008 itself and the appeal was filed in February, 2009. The only explanation offerred by the applicant in paragraph 4 of the application is that she is a poor lady and having no source of income and, therefore, she took time to collect funds for filing S 2 the appeal. This cannot be accepted as a ground for condoning long delay of 441 days caused in filing the appeal against the decree of partition obtained by a member of the joint family, who is now 80 years old. The applicant claims that the properties of which partition was sought are self acquired properties of her husband. Both the courts below have rejected this claim and held that the properties are joint family properties and respondent no.1 is entitled for partition and separate possession of his share. By the impugned decree the applicant is allotted 1/4th share in the joint family properties. Keeping this all in view and considering that no sufficient cause for condoning the delay is shown this application deserves to be rejected. Order accordingly. Conseqeuently, the second appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation. Civil application for stay is also disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)