1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.140 OF 2009 Bhairu Pandu Takmare and ors. ..Appellants Vs. Shankar Bhimrao Patil and anr. ..Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.197 OF 2009 Bhairu Pandu Takmare and ors. ..Appellants Vs. Ramesh Shivram Patil ..Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.131 OF 2009 Bhairu Pandu Takmare and ors. ..Appellants Vs. Smt.Gunabai Babu Patil and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.Pratap Patil, for appellants (in all Appeal). ......... 140-09.sxw 2 CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 9 th JUNE, 2010. P.C. : These Second Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common order. The basic issue that arises in all these Second Appeals is whether Vithabai is the legally wedded wife of Dattu. Appellants contend that Vithabai has no nexus whatsoever with Dattu. The alleged marriage between Vithabai and Dattu did not take place prior to 1956. Vithabai filed written statement in R.C.S.No.63 of 2001. In that written statement, it was asserted that her mother- in-law Tanabai died three years after solemnization of marriage. Appellants/original defendants placed reliance upon the death certificate which showed that Tanabai died on 7 th October, 1969. On the basis of the death certificate, it was contended that the marriage between Vithabai and Dattu took place some time in the year 1966-1967, and, at any rate, the marriage did not take place prior to 1956. According to the appellants/original defendants Vithabai was not legally wedded wife of Dattu. 2] The courts below recorded findings accepting the contention of Vithabai that she married Dattu in the year 1948 as Anubai, another wife could not conceive any issue. The testimony of PW 1 Raghunath was consistent with this contention so also, the testimony of PW 2 Vithabai was consistent with the said case. After setting out the factum of marriage, Vithabai contended that she married Dattu in 1948 after assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and she deposed that the marriage was performed in the presence of relatives and residents. The courts below also considered the fact that after the death of Dattu, Mutation Entry No.2525 was sanctioned in the name of Anubai and Vithabai on 27 th 140-09.sxw 3 November, 1997 as the only heirs and legal representatives of Dattu. After the death of Anubai, Mutation Entry No.2642 was sanctioned on 22 nd November, 1999 in the name of Vithabai. The appellants never raised any objection regarding the status of Vithabai in the lifetime of Dattu and also at the time when the Mutation Entries were sanctioned. The courts below recorded findings that Vithabai is the legally wedded wife of Dattu. 3] I do not find any substantial question of law arising in the present Second Appeals. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on material on record. It cannot be said that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below are perverse or based on no material. Second Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] 140-09.sxw