: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.714 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.714 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.714 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2004 AND AND AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.344 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.344 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.344 OF 2008 Krishna Baba Kalel ...Appellant V/s. Avadabai Bhanudas Kalel & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh, Advocate, for the Appellant. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the appellant who is the 1st defendant. Suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for partition has been decreed by the Trial Court and the Decree has been confirmed in the Appeal. The contention of the 1st defendant was that one of the suit properties was his self acquired property. The said contention has been disbelieved by both the Courts below. The learned Advocate for the appellant has invited my attention to the findings recorded by both the Courts below. He submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that the nucleus existed from which the property held in the name of the appellant could have been acquired. : 2 : 2. I have carefully considered the submissions. The Courts below and especially the Appellate Court found that at the time of acquisition of the property in dispute the joint family was in existence and was holding agricultural land having area of 30 acres with 6 wells. On the other hand concurrent findings have been recorded that the appellant could not establish self acquisition. The Appellant could not prove that the property was acquired from his own funds even after examining his vendors as well as the 2nd defendant. 3. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No.332 of 2004 and No.344 of 2008 do not survive and the same are disposed of. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]