1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2006 Pralhadrao s/o Ganpatrao Biradar. ..APPELLANT (orig. defendant.) V E R S U S Megha d/o Pralhad Biradar. ..RESPONDENT (orig. plaintiff.) Shri R.C.Patil, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.V.Chillarge,Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. This is an appeal by the original defendant raising an exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2- The respondent-plaintiffs presented the suit claiming partition and separate possession of the landed property admeasuring 5 H 18R out of land gat no. 584 as well as residential properties bearing house no.494 admeasuring 40'x50'. The defendant-appellant herein is the father of respondent-original plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that she and her mother were driven out by her father- original defendant from the house and as such they are compelled to reside separately. The request made by the plaintiff after attaining majority for allotment of the share to her has been rejected by the defendant. It has also been contended by the plaintiff that the suit property is the property belonging to defendant which has fallen to his share in partition between him and his brother. The plaintiff as such 2 claims her entitlement to the 1/2 share in the property. 3. The defendant has filed his written statement and controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiff. The defendant has contended that the mother of the plaintiff is his third wife and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to claim partition. The paternity of the plaintiff has also been denied by the defendant. The trial court after considering the contentions raised held that, plaintiff has established her case and granted decree in her favour. The appeal preferred by the defendant being RCA No.264/2001 was heard and disposed off by the Additional District Judge, Udgir who was pleased to dismiss the same by judgment and decree dated 06.12.2003. 4. I have perused both the judgments. Shri R.C. Patil, the counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the courts below have not considered the issue in respect of non joinder of necessary parties. As such contention was not taken up by the defendant in the written statement no issue to that effect was framed by the trial court. Before the appellate court, such an contention does not appear to have been raised. In the absence of any specific defence to that effect, contentions raised by the defendant-appellant herein in respect of non joinder of necessary parties cannot be allowed in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal therefore stands dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application does not survive and hence accordingly disposed off. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE. aaa/29.06 ...