1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.781 OF 2009. Shivaji Suryabhan Choudhari died his L.Rs. ... Appellants. Versus Bhagirathibai @ Sumitra W/o Gangadhar Choudhari and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, advocate for the appellants. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 04.11.2009. PER COURT 1. This Second Appeal arises out of concurrent judgments rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court. The appellants are legal representatives of deceased Gagadhar against whom the suit for partition and separate possession was filed by the Respondents. The only material issue in the suit was whether the 2 Respondent No.1 Bhagarathibai @ Sumitra (plaintiff No.1) was legally wedded wife of the deceased Gangadhar. The trial Court held that the factum of marriage was duly proved on account of versions entered by the Respondent No.1 and her witnesses. The findings of facts is confirmed by the first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal. Mr.Suryawanshi, would submit that the finding is perverse inasmuch as the Respondent No.1 admitted that at the time of her marriage with said Gangadhar, PW Ramchandra was not present though the latter asserted that he was witness of the marriage, yet, both the Courts accepted his version. On perusal of judgment of both the Courts below, it is manifest that there is other evidence of PW 3 Shahu to prove that the Respondent No.1 was residing with deceased Gangadhar as his wife. Not only that during his life time she was residing with him but the witnesses have further testified that she resided in the same house along with the deceased defendant No.2 and others for about 10/12 years. Thus, there is oral evidence to support her contention regarding consortium with deceased 3 Gangadhar for a long drawn period. Obviously, presumption U/s 112 of the Evidence Act is available and so also the evidence of the witnesses is admissible U/s 50 of the Evidence Act as regards opinion about relationship between deceased Gangadhar and the Respondent No.1. Considering these aspects and in view of the concurrent findings of facts, it is difficult to entertain the Second Appeal since it falls outside the pale of Section 100 of the C.P.C. Consequently, the Second Appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa78109