1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No. 710 of 2005 With Civil Application No.4767 of 2005. Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri Pramod Waghmare, Advocate for appellants.Shri R.R. Ingale, Advocate, for Respondent. 1. This is an appeal filed by original defendants, who are aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 32 of 1999 decided by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gangapur on 5.2.2002, whereby suit for partition was allowed and the plaintiff was declared to be entitled to 1/2 share in the suit property. The said judgment and 2 decree is further confirmed by III Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Appeal No.262 of 2002 decided on 30.10.2003. 2. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Main defence taken by the defendants is that there was already partition in 1991. It is also his case that he spent an amount of Rs.15,000/= in the marriage of daughter of Respondent-Plaintiff and at that time Respondent relinquished her share in the suit property. This aspect is dealt with by learned Trial Court in paragraphs 19 to 23 of it judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has also read out depositions of the appellant and the respondent. No other witness is examined. It is the case of the appellant that only he and respondent were present at the time of alleged relinquishment and no document to that effect was executed. So, there is only oral word of defendant 3 no. 1 who is an interested witness. According to the pleadings, alleged partition had taken place in the last week of January 1991 in village whereas, evidence is that relinquishment was at the time of marriage of daughter of respondent in 1993. 4. It has also come in the evidence that at the time of marriage of Nandabai-daughter of respondent, marriage of daughter of appellant has also taken place and appellant's daughter was given in marriage to the son of the plaintiff. Daughter of defendant No. 1 is given in marriage to the son of respondent-plaintiff. It has come in the evidence of respondent that her financial position was good. Her husband had 12 acres of agricultural land and her son was serving in a factory where her daughter-in-law also got employment. 5. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances, the trial court and 4 the first appellate court disbelieved the theory of relinquishment put forth by the appellant. 6. After taking into consideration depositions of the witnesses which were read over to me and also after going through the judgments of the trial court as well as first appellate court, view taken by them appears to be reasonable and proper. The second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. In this view of the matter, second appeal is dismissed. 7. In view of dismissal of appeal, civil application No.4767 of 2005 does not survive and hence, disposed of as such. Date:25.06.2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/sa710.05 5