1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 530 OF 2009 Suryabhan s/o Maruti Bhawar .. APPELLANT VERSUS Ramkisan s/o Maruti Bhawar & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for the appellant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 15 th October, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original defendant raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff and defendants are brothers interse. Plaintiff instituted suit claiming decree of partition and separate possession of the ancestral property. It is contended by plaintiff that his father died prior to 40 years. Defendants refused to give him share in the ancestral property and as such, plaintiff is constrained to file the instant suit. 2 3 Defendants controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiff contending that the suit properties are not ancestral one but have been purchased by them by application of funds secured by them out of their own earning. Thus, suit is resisted on the ground that the property exclusively belongs to the defendants. 4 Trial court as well as the first appellate court after considering the evidence placed on record recorded finding that the property in dispute is ancestral property and the defendants have failed to establish that the same has been acquired by them by application of their own funds. It is found by the courts below that the lands in question were previously cultivated by plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 3 in their capacity as tenant. Moreover, the property in question is also purchased in the name of plaintiff and defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 has admitted in his written statement that in the year 1955 the disputed lands were purchased from one Chandman for plaintiff and the defendants. In this view of the matter, the courts below were justified in recording finding that the property in question belongs to the family of the plaintiff and defendants and plaintiff is entitled to have separate share in the joint family property. Reasons recorded by the courts below appear to be proper and based on appreciation of evidence 3 which need not be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 5 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa530.09.odt