(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No. 550/2010 Vitthalrao Bhikaji Kadu and others. -VERSUS- Vimal @ Subhadrabai Narayanrao Gawande and others. ________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 21.01.2011. Heard Shri A.P. Tathod, the learned Counsel for the appellants. By the above Second Appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.11/2006, by which the decree passed by the learned Trial Court has been confirmed. The appellants herein are the original defendants to Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2003, which was filed for (2) partition and separate possession of the property purportedly said to be joint family property. The trial Court as indicated above, decreed the suit and held the plaintiffs entitled to the shares mentioned in the operative part of the order dated 23.12.2005. On the matter being carried in appeal, the Appellate Court has slightly modified the decree, in so far as the shares are concerned and has held that the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 3 to 5 would be eneitlted to 1/24th share in the suit properties and that the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 are entitled to 9/24th share each in the suit properties. Both the Courts below have therefore, concurrently held as regards the right of the plaintiffs in the suit properties. In so far as the issue whether the plaintiffs who are married sisters, could have sought partition, in the absence of any pleadings as regards the date on which they got married, the First Appellate Court has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2007 [2] ALL MR 679 (Biharilal Pateria [dead] through lrs. .vrs. Hiralal (3) Bhagwandas Gupta [dead through L.Rs.] and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2010 [3] ALL M.R.90 (Gajanan Sakharam Gadewar [dead through L.Rs.] .vrs. Smt. Anjanabai Sakharam Gadewar]. In my view, considering the judgments of the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the above Second Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd