1 SA 701.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 701 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Sandeep S.Deshmukh,Advocate for the appellant. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is Appeal filed by the defendant no. 3. The plaintiff had filed Suit for partition and separate possession. The trial Court decreed the Suit. The defendant no. 3 preferred Appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The defendant no. 3 has assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr. Sandeep S.Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defendant no. 3 is bonafide purchaser from defendant no. 1. After taking stock of the 2 SA 701.2010 situation and the fact that the defendant no. 1 had the authority, the defendant no. 3 had purchased the property. In such circumstances, it was erroneous on the part of the Court below to come to the conclusion that the defendant no. 1had no authority to sale the same. The learned counsel further contends that even otherwise the defendant no. 3 was a tenant over the said property for more than 50 – 60 years. The Courts below have failed to consider this aspect in correct perspective and thereby have arrived at erroneous conclusion. The factum of tenancy has not at all been considered. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 4. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence on record have concurrently come to the conclusion that the defendant no. 1 had absolutely no right or authority to sale the said property to the defendant no. 3. The suit lands are the ancestral properties and as such the same could not be binding on the share of the other heirs and sharers. As far as the defence of tenancy as raised by defendant no. 3 is concerned, the same is without any record. No details have been given about the same. 3 SA 701.2010 5. In light of the above, no error has been committed by the Courts below while passing the impugned Judgment and decree. 6. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 7. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is dismissed. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 701.2010