1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No.669 of 2005 Anna s/o Bala Kekan and others Appellants V E R S U S Sakhubai w/o Shankarrao Kekan and others Respondents Mr. M.R. Andhale, Advocate the appellants Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Advocate for the respondents No.1 Miss. Sijitha V. Sharathpedi, Advocate holding for Mr.A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 5 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 15th June, 2010 PER COURT : 1. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the suit properties (three pieces of lands situated at village Shirur) belonged exclusively to Shankar, the husband of respondent No.1 Sakhubai, and so, she has 1/4th share in it alongwith Sakhubai's co-wife Rahibai and Sakhubai's daughter etc. The respondent No.1 Sakhubai had filed suit for declaration that the suit properties belonged to her husband Shankar exclusively and for possession against her husband's brother Anna, who is the appellant here. 2. The appellant took a defence that the suit lands were purchased jointly by him and Shankar, and so, he has half share in them and he has been cultivating his portions since long time. He sought dismissal of the suit. The Courts below rejected his case and held that the respondent No.1 / plaintiff has proved that the suit lands belonged to her husband exclusively and that the appellant / original defendant No.1 had no concern with it. 3. Having gone through the Judgments of the Courts below, I 2 found that the Courts below discussed the evidence quite cogently and arrived at the above mentioned conclusion. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant tried to inform to the Court that besides the suit lands, there were two more lands, which stood in the name of the appellant / defendant No.1 in which the respondent No. 1's husband had undivided half share. He informed further that after the death of Shankar, the appellant partitioned the lands which stood in his name and handed over separate possession of the shares to the respondent No.1 and her co-wife Rahibai. He therefore suggested that the case of the appellant that he has half share in suit lands and he has been cultivating the same lawfully deserve to be believed. He, in other words, suggested that the appreciation of the evidence of the Courts below was perverse. I am not in agreement with Mr. Andhale, the learned Advocate of the appellant mainly because the facts narrated by Mr. Andhale, mentioned above in respect of two other lands, which stood in the name of the appellant and which were subjected to partition etc is not part of the appellant's defence at all. As said above, his defence was that he and his brother Shankar jointly purchased the suit lands from the income earned jointly by them and from the sale proceeds of their ancestral property situated at village Jaibhachiwadi etc. As said above, the case of the appellant in defence was not believed by the Courts below. This being the second appeal, there is hardly any possibility of re- appreciation of the evidence. Besides, as said above, the Courts below accepted the case of the respondent No.1 recording cogent reasons. No substantial question of Law arises in this appeal, therefore, the appeal should fail. Second Appeal dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/sa/669/05 3