: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.761 OF 2002 Bhaga Rama Waghmare, Decd., Thru’ Sagunabai B. Waghmare & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Suman Pandurang Sandbhor & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Advocate, i/b. Mr. A.A. Garge for the Appellants. Mr. Tejas Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.1, 2B, 2C and 3. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 31 ST MARCH, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 20th September, 2000, passed in Civil Appeal No.42 of 1998 by the Additional District Judge, Pune, by which the Appeal filed by the defendants has been allowed and the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed on 21st November, 1997, in Regular Civil Suit No.160 of 1990 has been set aside. Accordingly, the Regular Civil Suit No.160 of 1990 has been dismissed. : 2 : 2. The plaintiff, i.e. the appellants herein, had filed a Suit for a declaration and perpetual injunction. The main dispute was with respect to an open space bearing No.149 situated at Village Chandoli. The trial Court decreed the Suit and declared that the plaintiff has ½ a share in the suit property while defendant Nos.1 to 3 are all entitled to the rest of the property. The Appellate Court, in my view, while dismissing the Suit has not committed any error. Dilip, the son of the plaintiff, was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The Appellate Court has considered the fact that he had admitted that there was a partition between his father and his uncle Baban. He also admitted that his father had received possession of Survey No.151 in the aforesaid partition. 3. In my opinion, the Appellate Court has committed no error by concluding that Survey No.149 was in the exclusive possession of the heirs of Baban i.e. the defendants herein. : 3 : 4. Apart from this, there is no reason mentioned as to why Dilip was examined instead of his father. Even assuming that Dilip was the constituted attorney of his father, i.e. the plaintiff, he could have deposed to only such facts as are within his personal knowledge. This is a well settled position in law. 5. In my opinion, no substantial question of law has been involved in the present Second Appeal for determination by this Court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed.