spb/- 1 sa400-399-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 400 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NOs. 1006/ 2011 & 1019/2011 AND SECOND APPEAL NO. 399 OF 2011 Shri Ramu Santu Vhatkar ... Appellant. V/s. Shri Ananda Ranoji Vhatkar & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. V.B. Rajure for the Appellant.. --- CORAM : G. S. GODBOLE, J. DATE : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1 Heard Mr. Rajure for the Appellant. 2 Both the Second Appeals challenge the common Judgment and Decree dated 12.01.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kolhapur. Respondent No.1 is original Plaintiff in RCS No. 22/2003 which was filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Kagal for partition and separate possession and declaration that the compromise decree dated 11th March, 2000 passed in R.C.S. No. 13 of 2000 filed by the Appellant/Defendant No.1 against Defendant No.2 is null and void and spb/- 2 sa400-399-11.sxw prayer for perpetual injunction was also made. The Appellant opposed the Suit particularly on the ground that the properties bearing Gat Nos. 801 and 802 were both joint family properties. Gat No. 802 was acquired by the Government for MIDC and according to the Appellant the compensation was shared between the Appellant and Respondent No.2 and that the Respondent No.2 was acting as Karta; as a result of which the Decree in the earlier Suit would bind the Plaintiff and other children of Respondent No.2/Defendant No.2. 3 Learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Kagal partly decreed the suit and the Decree passed in RCS No. 13/2000 was held to be void ab-initio and having been obtained by not disclosing the fact that apart from Defendant No.2 there were other heirs of the deceased -Ranoji. Perpetual injunction was also granted but Decree for partition and separate possession was declined on account of the fact that one sister of the Plaintiff had not been impleaded. 4 The present Appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2007 whereas Respondent No.1 filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2007 in the District Court, Kolhapur and by impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2011, the learned Principal District Judge, Kolhapur has dismissed spb/- 3 sa400-399-11.sxw the Appeal filed by the Appellant and allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 and decree for partition and separate possession has also been passed. This has been done on account of the fact that during pendency of the Appeal one sister of the original Plaintiff who was earlier not joined, was brought on record. 5 Mr. Rajure submits that the original Plaintiff was fully aware about the filing of the earlier Suit and the Decree passed therein but did not raise any objection. It is further submitted that since the Appellant has shared compensation of the Land bearing Gat No.802 and since Gat No. 801 and 802 were joint family property, the original Defendant No.2 entered into a compromise decree in R.C.Suit No. 13/2000. Reliance is placed on the evidence led by the Officers of the Bank. 6 I have considered the submissions. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. The Appellant, original Plaintiff in R.C.S NO. 13/2000 has deliberately not disclosed the fact that the deceased Ranoji had sons and daughters. Geneology given in the said Suit did not disclose the said fact. The Suit was filed in January, 2000 and the compromise was entered into within two months. The Defendant No.2 was illiterate lady. The fact that the Appellant had allegedly shared the spb/- 4 sa400-399-11.sxw compensation of Gat No. 802 was required to be proved by the Appellant and both the Courts have held that the Appellant has not been able to prove the said contention. Two Courts have also recorded a concurrent finding that lands bearing Gat Nos. 802 and 801 were not joint family properties nor were they jointly owned by the Appellant and Ranoji/ Defendnat No.2 Krishnabai. In such a situation there was no question of passing a decree for partition even in the earlier Suit. 7 I have carefully perused the impugned Judgments and Orders. Findings of fact recorded by the two courts are in accordance with the evidence on the record and correct principles of law have been applied. There is no perversity in the findings. No substantial question of law arises in the aforesaid Second Appeals. 8 Both the Second Appeals are dismissed. 9 In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeals itself, the Civil Applications bearing Civil Application Nos. 1006/2011 and 1019/2011 are also dismissed. [G.S.GODBOLE, J.]