1 IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.68 OF 2000 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1277 OF 2008 Dharma Chimaji Pailwan .. Appellant V/s. Rajappa Chimaji Pailwan & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.G.M.Khambete for the Appellant/Applicant. None for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : AUGUST 11TH, 2008. P.C. This Second appeal takes exception to the Judgment and decree dated 15th September, 1999 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Pune by which the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 7th September, 1985 came to be confirmed. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff who had filed Special Civil Suit No.524 of 1981 for 2 share in the properties mentioned in paragraph 1A, 1B and 1C of the plaint which according to him were joint family properties. 2. Considering the material that was on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit in respect of the properties mentioned in paragraph 1A, 1B of the Plaint. However, the Trial Court refused to pass a decree in so far as the movable property mentioned in paragraph 1C of the Plaint is concerned. 3. Aggrieved by the part decreeing of the said suit, and thereby excluding the movable properties mentioned in paragraph 1C of the plaint, the Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No.843 of 1993 restricting his Appeal to the refusal of the Trial Court to pass a decree in respect of movable properties mentioned in paragraph 1C of the Plaint. The Appellate Court considering the evidence on 3 record came to a conclusion that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that the movable property mentioned in paragraph 1C of the Plaint are not the joint family properties needs to be confirmed. The Lower Appellate Court held that the Plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the properties mentioned in paragraph 1C are the joint family property. 4. Both the Court below therefore have recorded a findings of fact in respect of the properties mentioned in paragraph 1C holding that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the said properties are joint family properties. 5. In my view, the challenge raised in the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. 4 6. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application No.1277 of 2008 does not survive and is disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J.]