1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 532 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.P.Latange, Advocate for respondent no. 1. .......................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28/09/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is defendant no. 2’s Second Appeal. The present respondent no. 1 had filed Suit for partition and separate possession. Both the Courts below have decreed the Suit holding that the plaintiff has 1/3rd share in the suit property and that defendant no. 2 had individual 1/3rd share and also 1/3rd share is given to him by virtue of Will deed executed by Gangubai. 2. Mr. S.S.Choudhari, the learned counsel for the appellant 2 contends that Subhadrabai would not be entitled for 1/3rd share on the count that deceased Kalyan had left 2 widows i.e. present plaintiff and one Roopabai and as such Roopabai and Subhadrabai both together would take 1/3rd share. It is also contended by Mr. Choudhari that the Court below has not properly framed the points for determination. 3. The lower appellate Court in para no. 25 of its Judgment has considered the shares of the respective parties. The Trial Court had not granted any share to Roopabai. Roopabai did not dispute the said fact and had accepted the said finding. Thereafter due to share interse between Roopabai and Subhadrabai, the share of the appellant would remain unaffected. 4. Even the points for determination have been framed and though while answering the point for determination in respect of limitation, the Court has observed as “ barred by limitation ”, still while giving finding in the Judgment, it has given a finding that the Suit is within limitation and that answer to point no. 3 was merely a ‘ mis-nomea ’. 3 5. In light of the above, no substantial question of law is involved. The present Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 532.2010