1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.680 OF 2008 WITH REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO.1121 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2002 Mathurabai Sambhaji Jambhale and another. ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- Namdeo Tulshiram and others. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr.H.K. Mundhe, advocate for applicants. ......... (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 04th August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. None appears for respondents. The delay of 143 days caused in filing the Review Application is condoned, for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay. Civil Application no. 680 of 2008 is disposed of. 2. The Second Appeal (S.A. No.383/2002) came to be dismissed for the reason that no substantial question of law was noticed. The counsel would submit that substantial question of law is involved in view of the fact that deceased mother of the plaintiffs 2 was having her separate half share of which she could not be deprived. He would submit that the applicant could claim half of the share being successor of deceased Hanwata i.e. original owner and Chandrabhagabai. It appears that said Chandrabhagabai died some where in 1983. She had adopted father of respondent nos.1 to 4 i.e. Tulshiram in or about July, 1949. At that time, Hanwata was not alive. Therefore, the first appellate Court as well as this Court held that theory of relation back under Section 12 of the Hindu Succession Act is applicable. The adopted son Tulshiram was the sole surviving male member when her adopting father Hanwata died. It is not the case that deceased Chandrabhagabai had continued in possession in her own rights or in her right to get maintenance and that limited right was enlarged by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Consequently, the judgment rendered by this Court can not be regarded as rendered without considering the relevant laws. Assuming that some mistake appears in the said judgment, then also the same can not be rectified by the same Court usurping the powers of the appellate Court. Hence, the Review Application is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/ca680.08