1 SA137/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2005 Zumbarbai w/o Keru Mote Appellant V E R S U S Chandrakant Rambhaji Darandale & Ors. Respondents Mr. S.R. Sapkal, Adv. h/f Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for the appellant Mr. A.H. Kasliwal, Adv. h/f Mrs. Netrali N. Nail, Advocate for respondents CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 5th July, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. This second appeal is challenging the Judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Shrirampur, holding that the appellant could not prove her locus to file the suit as daughter of one Bhanudas, who happened to be uncle of the respondents. The appellant filed the suit for partition saying that she was cousin of the respondents, and therefore, was entitled to partition the ancestral property. The respondents denied her claim and stated that their uncle Bhanudas died issueless. He never married during his life time. Therefore, it was for the appellant / plaintiff to prove her case that she was either legitimate or illegitimate daughter of Bhanudas. The learned Judge of the trial Court held that she could prove her case, but the learned Judge of the first appeal Court refused to believe her case. Both the learned Judges of the Courts below recorded reasons for coming to their conclusions, but after going through the Judgment of the learned Judge of the first appeal Court, I found the same to be more cogent. 2. There are two circumstances supporting the appellant; first was a birth 2 SA137/2005 extract, in which it was mentioned that a girl child was born to Bhanudas at village Sonai. But, the name of the girl child was Gangubai, which is not the appellant’s name. The learned Judge of the first appeal Court rejected this piece of evidence also because the extract was not properly proved. The second circumstance in favour of the appellant is admission of one of the respondents, that he had attended the appellant’s daughter’s wedding ceremony, in which he was standing behind the bride as her maternal uncle. Though the learned Judge of the first appeal Court did not discuss this circumstance, but I am not quite convinced that this would not clinch the issue. Some times, even persons, who are not directly related, are requested to do the honor of wedding ceremony and they oblige. The admission on the part of the respondents on this count thus would not prove the case of the appellant. The other important aspect which the learned Judge of the first appeal Court noticed and emphasized is that the appellant’s mother was very much alive when the evidence was recorded and she was not called as witness. The appellant thus would fail to convince that there is a substantial question of Law involved in this appeal. Thus, the second appeal stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of second appeal, CA No. 1365 of 2005 stands disposed of. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/