spb/- 1 sa651-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 651 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1758 OF 2010 IN S.A. NO. 651 OF 2010 Shri Bapu Shankar Patil ... Appellant. V/s. Shri Sambhaji Shivram Patil & Ors. ... Respondents. ­­­ Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale for the Appellant. ­­­­­ CORAM : G.S. GODBOLE, J. DATE : 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1 Heard Mr. Ingale, Advocate for the Appellant at length. Perused the pleadings, depositions and certain mutation entries handed over by Mr. Ingale. 2 RCS No. 100 of 1995 for partition and separate possession has been decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Shirala on 29.4.1999. The only dispute was in respect of one land namely, Survey No. 5 which was claimed to be the property of Shankar, the father of Defendant No.1. On appreciation of evidence and after considering recitals in the Sale Deed as spb/- 2 sa651-10.sxw also considering the mutation entries, the Trial Court recorded a finding that Shankar was not separated from his brother and father and though the property was purchased in his name; it was in fact the property of the joint family. 3 Regular Civil Appeal No.234 of 1999 was filed in the District Court at Sangli, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of learned Ad­ hoc District Judge­1, Islampur and was numbered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 960 of 1999. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2010, the learned Ad­hoc District Judge ­1, Islampur has dismissed the said Appeal by independently discussing the documentary evidence on record and has also recorded a finding of fact that from the recitals of the Sale Deed dated 11.6.1948 at Exh. 74, the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court about the status of the property being the joint family property was a correct conclusion. 4 These are pure findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. The Defendant No.1 has not stepped into witness box and had examined his constituted attorney. No evidence has been led to indicate that in the year 1948, deceased Shankar had even started living separately from the family or had any additional source of income. In the absence of any such spb/- 3 sa651-10.sxw evidence, no fault can be found with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and District Court. No question of law arises. 5 Second Appeal is dismissed. 6 In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal itself, the Civil Application No. 1758 of 2010 does not survive and the same is also dismissed. [G.S. GODBOLE,J] .....