Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLAATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.236 OF 2008 Jamnabai Kashinath Bhure : Appellant. Versus Rajaram Shankar Mokal : Respondent. Mr. V Z Kankaria for the Appellant. Mr. Macchindra Patil for the Respondent. CORAM : C L PANGARKAR, J DATED : 13th JANUARY 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. 2. This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff who has lost in both the Court below. She filed a suit for partition, separate possession and a declaration that the Gift Deed executed in favour of the Defendant by her father Shankar was not binding upon her and she was entitled to ½ share in the suit property. 3. The suit was contested by the Defendant mainly on the ground that the suit property was gifted to him by his father in the year 1983 and the suit is filed in the year 1997 and is therefore barred by law of limitation. 4. The learned Judge of the trial Court after recording the evidence found that the suit property was the ancestral property and, as the father had executed the gift deed in favour of the Defendanht, the Defendant had become the owner of the suit property. Holding so, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff. 5. The Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order of the learned trial Judge in the District Court. The learned District Judge after considering the evidence found that the Defendant had become full owner of the property by virtue of the gift deed and the Plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the suit property. 6. I heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. He submits before me that the appellant has a share in the suit property because it is an ancestral joint family property. He submits that even a daughter is a co-pacener and therefore entitled to the share in the suit property. 7. The suit property was gifted to the Defendant by his father in the year 1983 itself. In the year 1983, there was no provision in the Hindu Succession Act which treated the daughter as co-pacener to have a share in the ancestral property since the law was not at that time amended. The learned judge of the first appellate Court has rightly considered this. He has rightly held that since the suit property was already gifted in the year 1983, the daughter was not entitled to have any share in the suit property. The Defendant was the full owner of the suit property. It was rightly observed that in the year 1983 Hindu Succession Act was not amended and, therefore, the Plaintiff had no pre-existing right in the suit property at all. 8. There are two concurrent findings of fact. There is no substantial question of law is urged in this Appeal. The Appeal is therefore dismissed in limine. [C.L.PANGARKAR,J]