1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 380 OF 2001 Vatsalabai W/o Mahadu Ingale, Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Lahan, Tq. and Dist. Nanded, At present R/o Wakadi, Tq. Kalamnoori, Dist. Parbhani. .. .. Appellant Versus 1. Mankarnabai W/o Kondiba Haran, Age : Major, Occu. : Household, R/o Walki, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. 2. Kashinath S/o Kondiba Haran, Age : Minor U/g. of respondent No. 1 Mankarnabai W/o Kondiba Haran ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Gajanan S/o Balaji, Age : Major, Occu. : Agril., R/o Lahan, Tq. and Dist. Nanded. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dismissed as per Court's order dated 03.07.2009 4. Parwatibai W/o Mahadu Ingale, Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Lahan, Tq. and Dist. Nanded. .. .. Respondents Mrs. M. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant. Mrs. S. G. Chincholkar, Advocate h/f Shri G. N. Chincholkar, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. The Respondent No. 3 dismissed as per Court's order dated 03.07.2009 2 CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 05TH DECEMBER, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Chincholkar, learned counsel for the respondents. Mrs. Chincholkar is opposing the admission of this second appeal. The plaintiff is widow of Mahadu Ingale who died in the year 1992 leaving behind him the suit property described as land gat No. 362 admeasuring 14 Acres 49R situated at Lahan, Taluka and District Nanded and house property bearing No. 83 and 74 situated at Lahan, Taluka and District Nanded. She is claiming half share in the suit property being widow of the deceased Mahadu. The suit is filed in the year 1993 after death of Mahadu her husband against defendant No. 1 who is Mankarnabai who is married daughter of Mahadu and Geetabai who expired in the year 1953. Mahadu during his lifetime gifted land admeasuring 13 Acres 32 Guntha from gat No. 362 to his daughter Mankarnabai/defendant No. 1 as per registered gift deed dated 13.02.1970 executed 22 years before the present suit. The mutation entry is also taken for such transfer. The plaintiff has also challenged the gift deed and relevant mutation entry in the name of defendant No. 1. The deceased Mahadu also transfered some 04 Acres of land from same gat No. 362 to his nephew Gajanan Balaji. Hs name was also recorded in the revenue record. 2. The plaintiff has admitted that she had left the house of 3 Mahadu after Mahadu married to Parwatibai in the year 1975. The plaintiff married with Mahadu in the year 1963. Both the wife were not cohabiting well with each other, so she left the house of Mahadu to put an end to matrimony and started residing with her parents in another village from the year 1983. Then she filed separate proceeding for maintenance against the husband as he married to Parwatibai and simultaneously it was compromised. There was a deed of relinquishment executed by the plaintiff in favour of husband in respect of suit property. She received Rs. 10,000/- and in the said document she is shown as divorcee. It was some time in the year 1986. The facts are not disputed between the parties and have been mostly relied and accepted in the evidence by the learned Trial Court against the plaintiff for dismissing the claim. The First Appellate Court confirmed the dismissal of suit by dismissing the appeal on the evidence of relinquishment. However, the First Appellate Court recorded different finding about the status of the plaintiff. It was observed that she is not a legally wedded wife for no reason. 3. So far as dismissal of plaintiffs claim on the basis of relinquishment which is a registered document on record, there is one view in both the Courts below. It is seen that, despite having executed said document, the plaintiff did not refer it in the plaint and explain it. There is no other question of law to be called as substantial question is raised before this Court. The status of plaintiff and the legality of the marriage was not the issue before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court and not seriously contested by the parties. The contesting defendant defeated her 4 claim on the ground of relinquishment of her share for lump some amount of Rs. 10,000/- when she was separately living and accepted the same as divorcee of Mahadu. 4. I have gone through both the judgments. The original record and proceeding is available for perusal. After hearing the submissions of Mrs. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant I find that there is no substance in the second appeal, at least any substantial question to be tried. The second appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs, summarily at the admission stage. The second appeal is disposed of. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Dec. 09