1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 99 of 2007 Eknath Ramaji Gedam & Ano. Vs. Laxmibai Kisan Nagdeote Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri S. D. Malke Adv. for appellant. Shri Dharmadhikari Adv. for respondent. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 28 th March, 2008. Heard counsel for the appellant and the respondent. This appeal is at the instance of the defendant No.1 against whom a decree for partition and separate possession was passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court. The suit was instituted by 2 plaintiff who claims to be the sister of defendant No. 1. She alleged that her father left behind 4 fields when he died. On account of his death she and the defendant No.1 are the only heirs. She therefore claimed half share in the suit property. Defendant No.1 is the brother who appeared before the learned Civil Judge but inspite of time having been granted for 2, years no Written Statement was filed. Ultimately the learned Judge of the trial Court proceeded ex-parte and passed a decree granting partition of ½ share to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 being aggrieved by this decree appeared before the appellate Court. Appellate Court concurred with the finding by holding that plaintiff was entitled to ½ share. Being aggrieved by that this appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that property was joint family 3 property and therefore plaintiff could not get half share in the suit property. After having gone through the judgments of the Courts below it appears that defendants had not at all filed the Written Statement and therefore had not made any pleading that the suit property was ancestral property. There is no evidence whatsoever on the record to show that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of Ramji. Therefore, there is no application of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. It is Section 8 alone which will apply. In view of this the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff has ½ share in the property. There is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. svk JUDGE 4 svk