1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 321 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 321 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 321 OF 2008 IN IN IN SECOND APPEAL ST. No. SECOND APPEAL ST. No. SECOND APPEAL ST. No. 3393 OF 2008 AND AND AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 322 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 322 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 322 OF 2008 Mrs. Vimal Anandrao Nimbalkar & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Smt. Banabai G.Wadkar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P.M.Arjunwadkar, Advocate, for the appellants. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 1st August, 2008. DATE: 1st August, 2008. DATE: 1st August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. 2. The Civil Application No.321 of 2008 is for condonation of delay in filing the Second Appeal. The suit filed by the plaintiffs/applicants for partition 2 and separate possession was decreed by the trial Court. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/20th share each in the suit property. That judgment was challenged by some of the defendants in R.C.A. No.204 of 1994. The appeal was allowed by the Judgment dated 22.4.1999 only in respect of calculation of shares of the parties and accordingly, the shares of the plaintiffs and defendants were declared by the appellate Court. 3. The appeal should have been preferred within 60 days from the date of the decision of the appeal on 22.4.1999. As per the office calculations, there has been delay of 8 years and 193 days in filing the Second Appeal. The learned Counsel for the applicants points out that after decision of the appeal, the applicants had preferred a Revision Application before the District Court in respect of calculation of the shares. The Revision Application was rejected on 18.10.2007. The Second Appeal was thereafter filed on 7.2.2008. Therefore, according to him, delay was not much. 4. In fact, when the appellate Court had decided the appeal after making calculations about shares of the parties minutely, there could be no question of review of that Judgment and if the plaintiffs were aggrieved 3 by the decision, they could have preferred the Second Appeal. Therefore, it cannot be said that period taken for decision of the review application should be excluded for the purpose of filing the Second Appeal. 5. Assuming that there are good grounds for delay in filing the Second Appeal, I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as to whether there is any substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal. It may be noted that admittedly, there was a joint family consisting of one Ramu, his 3 sons and wife. He had also 2 daughters, who are the plaintiffs. The Joint Hindu family had the co-parcenery ancestral properties. Ramu died in 1975 leaving behind 3 sons, wife and 2 daughters. Later on, one of his sons, viz. Annasaheb died and thereafter his wife also died. Annasaheb left no legal heirs except his mother, brothers and sisters. Another son Ananda died leaving behind his wife and children, who are the defendants. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, the appellate Court has minutely considered the shares of each of the parties. The daughters could not claim share in the joint family property as co-parceners. They could claim share only out of 1/5th share of their father on the basis of notional partition on his death and then their share would go on increasing with the 4 death of their mother and brother Annasaheb. All these aspects have been minutely considered before determining the shares of the parties. I find no fault with the said calculation nor I find any substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal. 6. In view of the above, the Civil Application No.321 of 2008 is allowed. The delay is condoned. Second Appeal (Stamp) No.3393 of 2008 be registered and the Second Appeal stands dismissed summarily. 7. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the C.A. No.322 of 2008 does not survive and stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)