1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 671/2007 1 Bhagwan s/o Gopal Kale (Bandagar), Age : 48 years, Occu. Labour, 2 Shashikalabai w/o Bhagwan Kale (Bandagar), Age : 43 years, Occu. Household Both r/o Sul Galli, Latur, Dist. Latur. ...Appellants. Versus 1 Sukumarbai w/o Shripati Khatke, Age : 47 years, Occu. Household, R/o Koregaon, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 2 Sundarabai w/o Ratan Kale ( Bandagar), Age : 76 years Occu. Household, R/o Sul Galli, Latur Dist. Latur. 3 Manohar s/o Gopal Kale (Bandagar), Age : 57 years, Occu. Agriculture. 4 Parvatibai w/o Shivdas Kale ( Bandagar), Age : 62 years, Occu. Agri. 5 Bhanudas s/o Ambaji Solankar, Age : 57 years, Occu. Agril. 2 All R/o Sul Galli, Latur Dist. Latur. ...Respondents. ........ Shri R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for appellants. Shri S.C. Havelikar, Advocate for respondents no. 1, 2 and 5 [CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] Date : 08 th June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 Heard. 2 This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding given by Courts below. The suit property a house at Latur, originally belonged to one Balu who was father of Gopal and Ratan two brothers – the predecessors of the principal parties to the suit. Respondents no.1 and 2 are daughter and widow of Ratan. They filed this suit for partition. The appellants No. 1 and 2 - the son and daughter in law of Gopal initially denied even relationship between Gopal and Ratan but the Courts below rejected their case. The other respondents are purchaser of portions of the house sold by Gopal during his life time. The courts below held that they were bona fide purchasers and were entitled to equity, when the partition would take place. On facts, there is hardly any need to interfere in the impugned judgments. However, 3 Shri Deshmukh Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants asserted that there is a question of law involved in this case. He said, Ratan - the predecessor of the respondents no.1 and 2 had died prior to 1951 and so as per the un codified Hindu law, they had lost right to the property and Gopal the predecessor of the appellants no. 1 and 2 became absolute owners of the property. He said, this aspect has not been examined by the Courts below. I am afraid, this submission is not acceptable mainly because appellants no. 1 and 2 did not specifically plead that their predecessor Gopal became absolute owner because of Ratan’s death prior to 1955. In absence of this, the Courts below could not examine this aspect framing proper issue etc.. This controversy is baseless and therefore, deserves to be ignored. The appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. ORDER The appeal stands dismissed. [ A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/