1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2009 Digambar Pandurang Balgude & ors........Appellants versus Smt. Suman Sambhaji Balgude ........ Respondent. Mr. V.B. Tapkir adv. for the Appellant None for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 5th FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The original plaintiff is the wife of deceased Sambhaji who expired in the year 1982. She instituted a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendant nos.1, 2 and 3. Defendant no.1 Digambar and defendant no.2 Gajanan are the step brothers of Sambaji. Pandurang the father of the three brothers, Digambar, Gajanan and Sambaji, had two wives, one by name Indubai and another by name Shantabai. Pandurang expired in the year 1985 leaving behind two wives and three sons. During the life time of Pandurang, he had partitioned the property giving 1/3 share to each of his sons. The property was not separated by mets and bounds and continued to be jointly possessed by three sons of Pandurang i.e. Digamber, Gajanan and Sambaji. Wife of one of the sons by name Sambaji, filed the suit as referred to hereinabove. The trial court dismissed the suit whereas the first appellant court has decreed the suit by 2 allowing the appeal. Aggreived by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the second appeal has been filed. The suit was filed after making categorical averments that long back the property was partitioned between Pandurang and his brothers and they have no concern with the property which form subject matter of the present suit. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties meaning thereby the brothers of Pandurang or their L.Rs. The objection is ill founded, hence rejected. The only question was as to whether could the plaintiff claim 1/3 share which was ear marked by the father of the husband of the Plaintiff in favour of the deceased son. First appellate court held that all the three sons of Pandurang have equal share in the property and hence decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 2. Perused the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, it does not suffer from any illegality. No substantial question of law emerges in the present appeal. Hence no interference is called for. The appeal thus stands summarily dismissed. It is made clear that the plaintiff's 1/3 share would be in the property which had fallen to the share of Pandurang in partition of the property effected in between Pandurang and his brothers. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)