IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIION SECOND APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2008 Shri Vishwas Buvasaheb Nimbalkar ..Appellant (Org.Defendant) Vs. Smt. Kashibai Shrirangrao Nigade &Ors.. Respondents (No.1 org.plaff. & others -org.defts) Mr. Rahul S. Kate, Advocate, for the appellant. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 11th September,2008 DATE: 11th September,2008 DATE: 11th September,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, who is the original defendant No.1. 2. To state in brief, the plaintiff/respondent and Chandrabhaga are the daughters of one Shankar Jagtap. He died intestate in the year 1974 leaving behind only two daughters as his legal heirs. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the sons and daughters of Chandrabhaga. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit no.255 of 1994 seeking partition and separate possession from the property of the father. The defendants contended that the defendant No.1 was the owner of the property by adverse possession and the suit was barred by limitation. Several other objections were taken. All the objections taken by the defendants were negatived by the trial Court and the trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff holding that she is entitled to half share in the property. The defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.103 of 1998. The appeal was also dismissed. Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.1. 3. In view of the admitted relationship, the plaintiff and her sister Chandrabhaga had half share each in the property of their father. The defendants being the sons and daughters of Chandrabhaga are entitled to half share and the plaintiff, being the daughter of Shankar Jagtap, is entitled to half share. Shankar Jagtap died in 1974 and the suit was filed in 1994. There is nothing to show that the plaintiff was excluded from the property more than 12 years prior to the filing of the suit and that the defendants were possessing the property openly, continuously and hostile to the title of the plaintiff. 4. In view of the facts and the admitted relationship and the concurrent finding of facts of both the Courts below, I find no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 5. The Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)