1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.414 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8857 OF 2010 Ragoba S/o Ganpati Awale ... Appellant. Versus Mohan S/o PUndlik Gajbhar and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.B.Gaikwad, advocate for the appellant. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 06.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The Second Appeal is by the original defendant. The plaintiffs had instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of 2 agricultural land and the house property. It is not disputed that the properties were self- acquired properties of father of plaintiff No.2 and grand father of plaintiff Nos.1,3 and 4 and the defendant No.1. Both the Courts have held that as the property was purchased by Ganpati and he died intestate, after his death property would devolve on his heirs. 2. The Courts have decreed the suit filed by the original plaintiffs. 3. Mr.Gaikwad, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the suit is filed prior to the Central amendment of the year 2005 and as such the said amended provision would not be applicable to the plaintiffs. According to him, as the death was prior to the amendment, the provisions of the Amendment Act would not be applicable. 4. Mr.Gaikwad, learned counsel further submitted that the amendment which was allowed was not signed by the plaintiffs nor a duplicate 3 copy of the plaint was filed. According to him, even P.W.2 admitted in his cross-examination that the house property is self-acquired property of Ragoba i.e. defendant No.1. According to him, the Courts below erred in passing the decree. 5. When it is not disputed that the property is the self-acquired property of the Ganpati, in such circumstances, the daughters and the son inherit the said property. The question of applicability of the Central Amendment Act of the year 2005 to Hindu Succession Act, can not arise. 6. There is a stray admission of P.W.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that the property was purchased by Ragoba. The Courts below have discussed that even that is not the pleadings of the defendant. Both the Courts have taken into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the totality of the evidence. In light of the above, there is no error in the judgments passed by the Courts below. No substantial question of law is involved. The 4 Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa414.10