1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 847 OF 2007 Chandrakant Bhagwan Lad & ors........Appellants versus Dattaram Shridhar Lad & ors........ Respondents. Mr. S.M. Railkar adv. for the Appellant. CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 10th DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Railkar learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are original defendant nos. 2 to 5 and respondent no. 1 is the original plaintiff. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession. The trial court decreed the suit partly. The respondent no.1 was given 1/8 share in the suit property at serial no. 3 to 11 of para 1A and serial no.2 of para 1B of the plaint. The partition however in respect of survey no. 69A, Hissa No. 15 and 69A, Hissa No.34 and house no. 587 was refused. 2. Both the respondent no.1/original plaintiff as well as present appellants/defendants 2 to 5 preferred two separate appeals before the lower appellate court. Both the appeals, after hearing both the sides, came to be dismissed by the judgment 2 and decree which is being impugned in the present second appeal by the appellants/defendant nos. 2 to 5. 3. The main dispute is about the properties at serial no. 3 to 11 described in para 1A of the plaint. It is the contention of the appellant that their landed properties are their separate properties, in as much as their father Bhagwan was a tenant in their properties and therefore respondent no.1/plaintiffs could not have been granted share in this property. 4. Both the lower courts below however, relied upon documentary evidence at Exhs. 134, 136 and 138 which are the certified copies of the evidence of deceased Bhagwan father of present appellant no.1/defendant no.2. In these evidence the deceased Bhagwan categorically admitted that the properties at serial nos. 7,9,10 and 11 described in para no.1A of the plaint are in his possession since last two generations. This statement unequivocally shows that prior to deceased Bhagwan, his fore- fathers were tenants in these properties and therefore the properties becomes joint family properties available for partition. Both the lower courts have approached the matter from correct point of view. I do not find any error so as to enable me to interfere in exercise of section 100 of Cr.P.C. Second Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 3 5. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (R. V. More, J.)