1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1447 OF 2005 Vishwanath Punja Gudaghe & another Appellants Versus Asha alias Lalita w/o Rangnath alias Ramdas Gudaghe Respondent Mr. A.D. Shinde, Advocate holding for Shri V.H. Dighe, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.K. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 24th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original defendants raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Respondent / original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit no. 134/1990 claiming recovery of possession of the suit property. Plaintiff claims that she is the legally wedded wife of one Rangnath alias Ramdas Gudaghe of village Sonewadi. Her marriage was solemnised with deceased Rangnath alias Ramdas on 20-6-1975 at Bet Devsthan, Kopargaon as per Hindu rites and customs. The first wife of her husband had already expired and as such he 2 solemnised second marriage with the plaintiff. Rangnath died in 1983 at Kopargaon. There was partition of estate amongst her husband and his brother defendant Vishwanath prior to death of Rangnath. Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to claim the property which had fallen to the share of her husband. Defendant no. 1 denied to allot share to the plaintiff and as such she was required to approach the court. 3 Defendants appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement. According to the defendants, plaintiff is not legally wedded wife of deceased Rangnath. However, deceased Rangnath had married with defendant no. 2 in the year 1975. Plaintiff never resided with deceased Rangnath. Defendants as such pray for dismissal of the suit. 4 On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial court framed issues and after receiving evidence led by the parties, granted decree in favour of the plaintiff. Trial court recorded finding that plaintiff has established her marriage with deceased Rangnath. It is further recorded by the trial court that the defendants have failed to prove that defendant no. 2 had married with deceased Rangnath in 1975. Findings recorded by the trial court were confirmed by the first appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal no. 327/1994. Appeal came to be decided by the Additional District Judge, Kopargaon on 3 9-9-2004. 5 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence led by the parties have recorded finding of fact that plaintiff has established her marriage with deceased Rangnath and she is entitled to recovery the property which had fallen to the share of deceased Rangnath. Finding of fact recorded by the courts below need not be interfered with while exercising jurisdiction under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* dyb/sa1447.05.odt