1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9169 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 13838 OF 1998 Baburao S/o Bhau Shirke .. .. Applicant Versus 1. Smt. Parubai W/o Sitaram Navale .. .. Respondents Shri R. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 08TH DECEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. This second appeal is filed in the year 1998 and bearing stamp No. 13838/1998 against the impugned judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court dated 07th January, 1998 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 207/1991. The impugned judgment is the first adverse order passed against the appellant/applicant in respect of suit property purchased by him which was challenged by the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 278/1986 before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Ahmednagar for her alleged preferential claim under Section 22 2 of the Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiff being sister of defendant No. 1 wanted to purchase the suit property which was already sold by her brother defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 who is present applicant/appellant. The said suit on merits was dismissed by the Trial Court by all findings, when the first appeal was remanded for leading evidence on additional issues. In short, the plaintiff’s/respondent’s preferential claim suit was dismissed. The Trial Court’s decision is in favour of the defendant/appellant. However, in first appeal preferred by the plaintiff/respondent, her 1/4th share was decreed for partition and separate possession and appeal was partly allowed to that extent without affecting the legality or validity of the impugned sale deed and the sale transaction between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. In short, there was no decree for preferential claim, fixation of market price or any order or direction to execute sale deed by the appellant/defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff. What was decreed by the Appellate Court for the first time is the 1/4th share in the joint family property and is mainly against the defendant No. 1 brother to the extent of 1/4th share and it might include the property which was sold to defendant No. 2 i. e. present appellant. 2. The appellant has filed this second appeal for this limited issue. However in preferring the appeal there is delay of 27 days. 3. The present civil application No. 9169/2009 purported to be under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 is for extension of 3 period of 27 days. The grounds stated for condonation of delay is health ground and old age of the appellant. I heard Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant. He also admitted that there is no decree of setting aside the sale deed passed and there is no finding recorded for preferential claim, but her said claim came to be decided as suit for partition. As such, for the original dispute, there is no question such as substantial question left to be decided in second appeal. 4. In the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, the period of 27 days requires consideration and with that view in the mind, the second appeal for admission was heard and orders of both the Courts below have been perused. In that view of the matter, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay of 27 days caused in filing second appeal is condoned. The second appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. The civil application disposed of accordingly. 5. Heard Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant on the point of merits of the appeal. No case is made out for admission of the appeal. The second appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission. The second appeal is disposed of accordingly. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Dec.09