:1: 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 SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.238 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.238 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.238 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.657 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.657 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.657 OF 2008 Digambar Shankar Jagtap & Ors ...Appellants. v. Kartikdas Sambhaji Jagtap & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.R.G.Ketkar i/by Vijay D. Patil , advs. for the Appellants. Mr.Sanjay Thokade , adv. for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 21st July, 2008. DATE: 21st July, 2008. DATE: 21st July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. This is the second appeal filed by the original defendants. Admittedly, the original plaintiffs Sambhu and Shankar, who was the father of the defendants, were the real brothers. Both of them were sons of Chokhu. Plaintiff Shankar filed suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property bearing Survey No.261, which was given gat no.561, admeasuring 10 H 4 R situated at Village: Khandali Taluka: Mohol, Dist.Solapur According to the plaintiff, it was joint family property of himself and brother Shankar. Being the manager of the family, the property was recorded in the records of right in the name of Shankar alone. Defendants claim that it was self acquired property of :2: Shankar. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that it was the property purchased by Chokhu, father of Shankar and Sambhu and it was recorded in the name of Shankar after the death of his father. The defendants preferred Civil Appeal No.369 of 2002. That appeal was also dismissed. The appellate Court also clearly noted that the name of Shankar was recorded as the holder of the property on the basis of mutation entry no.283, which reveals that the property was purchased by his father Chokhu for a consideration of Rs.30/- on 24-3-1890 from one Amin Hasan Tamboli. As the sale was for a consideration of Rs.30, which was less than Rs.100/-, the sale deed was not required to be registered and admittedly, there is no document in respect of that transaction. The name of Shankar stands in the record on the basis of that mutation entry only. After considering the whole evidence, the learned Appellate Court also came to conclusion that the suit property was not self-acquired of Shankar and it was joint family property, which had come to his hands from his father. In the result, appeal came to be dismissed. 3. There is concurrent finding of the facts by both the Courts below. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants could not point out any question of law involved in the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed summarily. In the result, civil application does not survive and stands disposed off. :3: (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)