* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2008 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1230 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2008 1. Gangaram Bapu Sarmalkar 2. Nhanu Bapu Sarmalkar ........Appellants/Orig.Defds no1 & 2. V/S. 1. Krishna Jayaram Sarmalkar (since decd) (a) Leela Krishna Sarmalkar (b) Prasad Krishna Sarmalkar 2. Sou. Manorama Manohar Bandivadekar ....Resp no.1 & 2/Orig.Plffs 3. Sagun Raghunath Sarmalkar 4. Smt. Jaywanti Yashwant Rawool ....Resp no.3 & 4/Orig.Defd no.3 & 4. --------- Mr. N.B. Shah with Mr.Piyush Shah, adv.for appellants. Mr.N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Counsel i/by. Mr. G.H. Keluskar, adv.for respondent no.1(a). CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER 2009. PC :- 1. Heard counsel for both sides. * 2 * 2. This Second Appeal arises out of concurrent findings of facts as regards the nature of 5 out of 14 properties. Both the courts below have held that all the 14 properties are joint family properties and decreed the suit for partition. The appellants who are original defendants no.1 and 2 contend that they are the exclusive owners of the properties at Serial Nos. 3, 4, 7, 10 and 14 as their father Bapu was the agricultural tenant in respect of these properties, who subsequently purchased the same. Both the courts below have taken note of the fact that the records of none of the 14 properties are in the joint names. The properties at Serial Nos. 2, 5, 9, 11 and 13 are entered in the name of original plaintiff no.1. The property at Serial Nos.1, 6, 8 and 12 are entered in the name of original defendant no.3 and the property at serial nos. 3, 4, 7, 10 and 14 are in the names of original defendants no.1 and 2. Both the courts have noted that the appellants have not produced any rent receipts or tenancy agreement to show that their father was the exclusive tenant in respect of five of the suit lands. It is in terms admitted by these appellants in their evidence that apart from their bare statement, they have no document to show that their was father was the exclusive tenant in respect of five of the properties. The document at Exhibit-53 shows that in the Form-8-A of record of rights, the properties are entered in the name of original defendant no.2 However, the revenue receipt at Exhibit-54 shows that the revenue in respect of the same was paid by the original plaintiff. The trial court considered all these aspects of the * 3 * matter to come to a finding that the properties at Serial Nos.3, 4, 7, 10 and 14 are joint family properties, though standing in the names of the appellants. 3. I have perused the judgments of the courts below. The finding arrived at is probable and supported by the material on record. There is no need to disturb such a finding. There is also no substantial question of law arising for consideration of the court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 4. With the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No.1230 of 2008 taken out for stay does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. (JUDGE)