1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.695 OF 2006 Sow. Trivenabai w/o Baburao Tompe, age: 50 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Hodoli, Tal. Chakur, District Latur. Appellant Versus 1 Manmath s/o Budhappa Karande, age: 60 years, Occ: Agril., 2 Madhav s/o Budhappa Karande, age: 55 years, Occ: Agril., 3 Gurunath s/o Budhappa Karande, age: 45 years, Occ: Agril., All R/o Hadoli, Tq. Chakur, District Latur. Respondents Mr.N.S.Kadam, advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.K.Ashtekar, advocate for Respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 26th August, 2009. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2004, passed by II Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Latur in Regular Civil Appeal No.97 of 2002, whereby appeal presented by defendants no.2 and 3 came to be allowed and judgment and decree passed by trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.13/94 came to be set 2 aside. 2 Plaintiff approached the Court claiming decree of partition and separate possession. According to her, she is real sister of defendants. Father of plaintiff and defendants, was one Budhappa. He had two brothers by name Rewappa and Gangaram. According to plaintiff, suit property belongs to the family of Budhappa and Rewappa, which had fallen in the hands of defendants. On demise of her father Budhappa, she is entitled to have share in the property. 3 Defendant No.1, for his own reasons, has supported case put up by the plaintiff, whereas, defendants no.2 and 3 have controverted the contentions raised by plaintiff by filing written statement. According to them, pedigree given by plaintiff is not correct. Father of plaintiff and defendants – Budhappa was not son of deceased Apparao. He was son of Nilappa. It is also their contention that Rewappa was not having any relation with Budhappa. Gangaram was only owner and possessor of suit property. They denied that Gangaram was brother of deceased father of plaintiff and defendants. They also denied year of death of Gangaram being 1984. According to them, families of deceased Gangaram and Budhappa are quite different and they are not sons of Apparao. It is the contention of defendants no.2 and 3 that they have purchased suit property from Gangaram in the year 1985, after death of their father Budhappa and as such, plaintiff cannot have share in the suit property. 4 The trial Court, after considering evidence led by the parties, held in favour of the plaintiff, whereas, first appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court. 3 5 So far as different genealogies given by plaintiff and defendants are concerned, the first appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that Gangaram was not brother of father of plaintiff and defendants. It has also been recorded by the first appellate Court that the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff in respect of death of Gangaram is not convincing. The death certificate placed on record, in fact, does not bear signature of Secretary nor bear rubber stamp. It was also found, on perusal of the record, that some pages of the Birth & Death Register are kept blank. The Register, according to the first appellate Court, in respect of birth and death, maintained by Village Panchayat Authorities, is not in accordance with the Rules. The first appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence placed on record, deemed it fit to accept the evidence led by defendants no.2 and 3. The first appellate Court has given detailed reasons to reach the conclusion as regards acceptability of the case put up by defendants no.2 and 3. 6 Considering all these relevant circumstances, I am of the opinion that present appeal does not involve substantial questions of law. 7 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa69506