1 CAS 581 of 2010 in SA 149 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 581 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2008 Vithalrao Dattatray Mokashi and Ors. ..Applicants/ Appellants Vs. Smt.Prabhavati Shivaji Mokashi and Ors. ..Respondents ----- Ms.Chaitrali Deshmukh i/b. Mr. Vineet B. Naik for Applicants Mr.Abhijit M. Adagule for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 18th March, 2011 P.C. 1. The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on the substantial questions of law which are framed on ground Nos.2 and 3 which reads as under: “2. The further substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the present matter is whether the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 were properly interpreted and applied to the case? 3.The further substantial question of law that arises in the present matter is 2 CAS 581 of 2010 in SA 149 of 2008 whether the provisions of section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act were properly interpreted and applied in respect of the suit property which is admitted a dwelling house proper.” 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that the said issue is longer res- integra to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kaushalyabai Biharilal Pateriay & Ors. Vs. Hiralal Bhagwandas Gupta & Ors.[2007 (4) Bom. C.R. 219]. He submitted that by the said order, the Division Bench has held that by virtue of the Amendment Act of 2005, the embargo existed prior to the said amendment has been deleted. Prior to the Amendment Act No. 39 of 2005, section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act prohibited a female from claiming partition. The said provision was deleted by the Amendment Act. 3. The learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that in paragraph 18 of the said judgment and order after relying on the judgment of the Apex Court, the Division Bench has also observed that the said Amendment Act No. 39 of 2005 would apply 3 CAS 581 of 2010 in SA 149 of 2008 retrospectively. 4. That being the position, the substantial question of law framed by this Court while admitting the appeal has been answered by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the Second Appeal is disposed of in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid matter. Second Appeal is disposed of. Civil Application does not survive and is also disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)