1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 367/2006 (Nandkumar Hirasa Ahale VERSUS Hirasa Jinasa Ahale & 9 others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri C.A. Joshi, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2008. Heard Shri C.A. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his 1/30th share in the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the property was originally owned by one Jinasa, the father of defendant nos.1 to 6. The defendant nos.1 to 4 are Jinasa's sons and defendant nos.5 and 6 are his daughters. The plaintiff pleaded that he is the son of defendant no.1 Hirasa. Defendant nos.7 to 9 are the brothers of the plaintiff and defendant no.10 is plaintiff's mother. The defendant nos. 4 to 6 denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that their father Jinasa was having ancestral field property. According to them, the field property was sold 30 years ago for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- and 2 at that time, the defendant no.1, the father of the plaintiff, relinquished his share in the suit properties in favour of defendant no.4 by accepting an amount of Rs.10,000/-. According to the defendants, the plaintiff had not included the whole property in the suit and, therefore, the suit was also not maintainable in view of the same. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was entitled to 1/30th share in the suit property. The trial Court held that the defendant nos.4 to 6 had succeeded in proving that the father of the plaintiff by name Hirasa relinquished his right in the suit property 30 years ago by receiving consideration of Rs.10,000/- from defendant no.4. The findings recorded by the trial Court were confirmed by the first appellate Court in an appeal filed by the plaintiff. I have perused both the judgments in detail and have also perused the record and the oral evidence tendered by the parties. It appears that both the Courts have rendered the findings of facts on an appreciation of the material evidence on record. The findings being pure findings of facts do not give rise to any substantial question 3 of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE