1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No.811 of 2008 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. Heard counsel. 2. The appellant is original defendant No.5 who purchased a part of the suit property bearing Gat No.256 from original defendant No.1 - Tulsabai. The plaintiffs filed suit (RCS No. 58/1999) for partition and separate possession alleging that they are the sons and widow of deceased Shankar and are entitled to get due share in the family properties. Original defendant No.1 also claimed the wife of deceased Shankar, whereas the defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the sons and daughter. The trial Court decreed the suit but dismissed the same to the extent of claim regarding partition and possession in respect of the alienated land i.e. Gat No.256. 3. It is was contended by the appellant that the plaintiff No.3 is not widow of deceased Shankar because she was dirovced as per the custom. It is pertinent to note that the first appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs vide RCA No.155/2004 and set aside the dismissal of the suit in respect of the land bearing Gat No.256. Therefore, the purchaser i.e. the appellant is aggrieved. There can not be any denial to the shares of original plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 even assuming that status of the plaintiff No.3 could be disputed. The purchaser could be gathered knowledge about rights of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The defendant No.1 had no exclusive right to alienate the suit land i.e. Gat No.256 when the other co-sharers have rights. The appellant relied upon a mere mutation entry in name of the defendant No.1. It is well settled that the mutation entry by itself does not create or take away the title and the same is relevant only for fiscal purposes. Further more, being the step mother of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, the defendant No.1 had no authority, whatsoever to alienate the land in question. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the learned District Judge is quite legal and proper. No substantial question of law is involved. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.17.12.2009. asp/office/sa811.08