1 (SA76/2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.76 OF 2010 Shri Nivrutti Bapu Rakshe .... Appellant. V/s Bhanudas Bhau Rakshe and another ..... Respondents. Mr. Vishwanath Talkute for the appellant. Mr. P.B. Gujar with Ms. Minakshi Surve for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 11th March, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Appellant is the original plaintiff. He filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit property. The suit property initially belonged to one Shivram. Shivram had one son by name Mahadu and one daughter by name Samabai. Samabai had one son Nivrutti. Nivrutti filed a suit for partition in 2003. Defendants filed their Written Statement and contended that the name of Shevanta was included over the suit property as she was the only heir at the said time. It was contended that she did not have any right, title or interest and after death of Shivram on 10/6/1975, daughters did not have any right in the said 2 (SA76/2010) property. It was also contended that Mahadu died in the year 1929 and, even at that time, daughters did not have any right in the property of the brothers. Shevanta was a wife of Mahadu and, as such, she had right to possess the property. Trial Court dismissed the suit and held that the Plaintiff had not proved that suit property was undivided hindu joint family property. It also held that Plaintiff had not proved that he had 1 ½ share in the suit property. These findings have been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the legal position as it existed in the year 1929 will have to be taken into consideration. He relied on Article 72 of the of the Old Hindu Law (Mitakshara School) and submitted that upon death of Mahadu in 1929, the mother of Plaintiff acquired a right in the property. 3. The submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted since the suit was filed by the Plaintiff in 2003 and the uncodified law was later on codified in 1956. The appellant, therefore, cannot rely on the said uncodified Hindu Law as it existed in 1929. 4. No substantial question of law is raised in this second appeal. Hence, second appeal is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 3 (SA76/2010)