1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.138 OF 2010 Sahebrao Shivram Bambale, age: 64 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Walujshet, Tq.Akole, District Ahmednagar. Appellant Versus 1 Ananda Hema Dethe, age: 69 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Walujshet, Tq.Akole, District Ahmednagar. 2 Nabhaji Babu Bhalerao, age: 54 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Near Tilak Nagar Police Station, Chembur, Mumbai-62. 3 Gondabai Chorva Bhalerao, age: 59 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Khadki, Tq.Akole, District Ahmednagar. Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde, advocate for the appellant. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 23 rd February, 2010. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court on 14.12.2009 in Regular Civil Appeal No.625/2000, whereby the first appellate Court was 2 pleased to reverse judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akole on 11.04.1997 in Regular Civil Suit No.198/86. 2 Plaintiff-appellant claims that he is purchaser of half share belonging to his predecessor-in-title Amruta. Defendants are step brother and sisters of Amruta. Plaintiff contends that in pursuance to the sale deed executed in his favour by Amruta - step brother of defendant no.1, he has been put in possession over the disputed property. He apprehends interference at the instance of defendants and as such, approached the Court claiming decree of perpetual injunction. 3 Defendants appeared and resisted suit by filing written statement. According to them, there is no partition effected between brothers and sisters in respect of ancestral property. Plaintiff is purchaser of undivided share belonging to the family from one of the coparceners and he is not entitled to ask for perpetual injunction as against joint owners. 4 The trial Court, however, granted decree in favour of the plaintiff, which has been reversed by the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court has adopted a view that there is no evidence in respect of partition of joint family property between plaintiff’s predecessor-in-title Amruta and defendants and as such, purchaser has a remedy available in presenting suit for partition and separation of shares. However, in stead of that, plaintiff has proceeded to file suit claiming decree of perpetual injunction. The first appellate Court has, therefore, reversed judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 5 I am of the view that reasons recorded by first appellate Court 3 based on appreciation of evidence and on application of legal principle in its proper perspective. The remedy available for plaintiff is in presenting suit seeking decree of partition and separation of shares. In view of purchase of property belonging to one of the coparceners in the joint family, suit presented by plaintiff claiming decree of perpetual injunction is not entertainable. In this view of the matter, judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court does not call for any interference. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 6 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa13810