1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2004 Sarjerao Sadhu Chambhar ) (Kamble), Age 46 years, ) Occup. Agriculture, ) resident of Bavchi, Tal. Walva, ) Dist. Sangli. ) ..Appellant (Orig. Defendant No.1) Versus 1. Anusaya Sadhu Chambhar Deleted – since deceased ) through her legal heirs: ) Appellant no.1 and Respondent) No.2 who are already on ) record as per Court order ) dated 19.4.09. ) 2. Rangrao Sadhu Chambhar ) (Kamble), Age 43 years, ) Occup. Agrculture ) Both residents of Bavchi, ) Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli ) ..Respndents Smt. Varsha Palav,Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Mane,Advocate, for the respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 10th September, 2009. JUDGMENT: 2 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant and respondent No.2 are the original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Respondent no.1 was the original plaintiff and is mother of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. She filed Regular Civil Suit No.296 of 1993 for partition and separate possession. According to her, the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the family. Her husband died about 30 years prior to filing of the suit and at that time the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were minor. She brought them up and were living together. In the year 1972, behind the back of the plaintiff and without her consent, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 got the property partitioned among themselves without giving any share to her. When she demanded her share, she was told that Gat Nos. 768 and 769 were given to her for her maintenance and promised that the partition would be effected later on. She took sugarcane crop from that land for one year. However, thereafter the defendants began to obstruct her possession and enjoyment of the said lands. In such circumstances, she filed the suit for partition and separate share. Defendant No.1, who is the present appellant, contested the suit mainly on the ground that at the time of consolidation of the lands in 1975, his mother/plaintiff had specifically relinquished her share in the property and it was agreed that she would be maintained by both the sons and she would be living with each of them turn by 3 turn and accordingly, names of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded after consolidation of lands. Defendant no.2 contends that land Gat No.854 to the extent of half share was purchased by him in 1983. According to him, he is in separate possession and cultivation since 1970. He also denied that land Gat No. 769 is his ancestral property. 3. The trial Court framed certain issues and after hearing evidence of all the parties, decreed the suit for partition and separate possession holding that no partition had taken place and the defendant No.1 had failed to prove that the plaintiff had relinquished her share in the property. The contention of the defendant no.2 that certain properties were not ancestral or were self-acquired properties of himself was also rejected. The defendant No.1 preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.770 of 1999 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal upholding the findings of the trial Court on each of the issues. Hence, the Second Appeal. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record as well as the judgments of both the Courts below, I find that no question of law is involved in the present Appeal in view of the concurrent findings of fact on each of the issues. There is no material to show that partition had taken place 4 in 1975 or that the plaintiff had relinquished her share at that time.Therefore, there is no substance in the Appeal. 5. The Appeal stands dismissed. 6. As the Appeal itself is disposed of, C.A. No.369 of 2004 does not survive and stands disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)