FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.39 OF 2010 (Sow. Sandhana w/o Deepakkumar Kajadiwal & anr. Vs. Santosh s/o Madanlal Mutha & ors.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate holding for Shri M.V. Mavandar, Advocate for appellant ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED: 13th December, 2010 1. Heard. Counsel for the respondents seeks accommodation, which is rebelling record, rejected. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I find the findings recorded by the learned Judge while dealing with Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No.95/2009 flow in tune with the record as the learned Judge has recorded that the plaintiff did not place anything to reveal that Purushottam and his mother Laxmibai were holding the property or to be branded it as ancestral property. It could not even be termed as joint family property. At this stage, such finding of the learned trial Judge does not call for interference. The order under challenge does not suffer any illegality. Appeal from Order dismissed. No costs. The observations of the learned Judge and also this Court are prima facie in nature. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE fmp/ao39.10