( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 584 OF 2009 Jankabai w/o Janardhan Shinde since deceased, by L.Rs. Navnath s/o Janardhan Shinde and others. APPELLANT VERSUS Janabai w/o Trimbakrao Hatwate RESPONDENT .... Mr. A.G. Dalal, advocate holding for Mr. V.D Salunke, advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.S. Kudale, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 2nd December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants are legal representatives of original defendant No. 1 and are the defendants No. 2 to 5. The plaintiff’s suit for partition and separate possession to the extent of half share in the suit properties came to be decreed. The decree rendered in the suit (R.C.S. No. 73/1997) is confirmed by the first Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal (R.C.A. No. ( 2 ) 65/2005). 3. It was inter alia contended by the defendants that the plaintiff has no concern with the deceased sister of the defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties were held by her grand- parents. The properties were inherited together by her mother Sonabai and deceased defendant No. 1 Jankabai who were real sisters interse. The defendants denied that the plaintiff had any relation with the defendant No. 1. Both the Courts below held that the plaintiff proved her relationship with the defendant No. 1 being the niece. In support of her case, the plaintiff examined PW2 Vishwanath, who is her paternal uncle. The trial Court and the first Appellate Court considered the material placed on record. It has been held that taking aid of section 50 of the Evidence Act, the relationship could be proved notwithstanding there was no documentary evidence in this behalf. 4. There are concurrent findings of facts based on material and the only question raised is regarding ( 3 ) appreciation of the evidence. No substantial question of law as such is involved in the second appeal. Hence, the second appeal is outside the scope of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and is dismissed. No costs. 5. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, the civil application No. 8344/2009 does not survive and hence, stands dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa584-09