IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIION SECOND APPEAL NO. 484 of 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 484 of 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 484 of 2008 Shri Vijay Ramchandra Sawant & Ors. ..Appellants (Org.Defts.Nos.1,2 & 13) Vs. Shri Ganpat Keshav Sawant &Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Sudhir Prabhu, Advocate, for the appellantrs. Mr. A.S.Khandeparkar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 11th September,2008 DATE: 11th September,2008 DATE: 11th September,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before this Court were the original plaintiffs. They filed Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2002 for partition and separate possession of the joint family property. According to them, one Rajaram was the son of Devji. Rajaram had three sons, viz.Keshhav, Ramchandra and Babaji. Plaintiff No.1 Gatpat is one of the sons of Keshav. Plaintiff No.2 is Babaji. Defendant NO.1 Vijay is son of Ramchandra. Defendant No.1 had sold certain property to Defendant no.2 under a registered sale deed. The plaintiffs contended that the property was joint family property and the defendant No.1 could not sell the same and that the sale deed was not binding on them. The plaintiffs claimed partition and separate possession as per their shares in the property. Defendant Nos. 3 to 14, who are respondents Nos. 3 to 14 before this Court are other legal representatives of Keshav. 3. The suit was mainly contested by defendant Nos.1 and 2.Defendant No.1 contended that Devji had 3 sons viz. Babaji, Rajaram and Gangaram. Ramchandra, the father of defendant no.1, was son of Rajaram, however,he was adopted by Babaji. According to him, in view of the adoption of Ramchandra by Babaji, he would be entitled to half share in the property. The trial Court rejected the contention of the defendant No.1 and held that Ramchandra , being one of the 3 sons of Rajaram, was entitled to 1/3rd share and plaintiff NO.2 Babaji was also entitled to 1/3rd share and all the legal representatives of Keshav were entitled to 1/3rd share. It was held that Defendant No.1 would get 1/3rd share of his father Ramchandra. Accordingly the decree was passed. 4. The said judgment and decree were challenged respondent Nos. 1, 2, 13 and 14 by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.69 of 2004. The appeal was dismissed. The appellate Court also rejected the contention of the defendant NO.1 that his father was adopted by Babaji. In such circumstances, original defendant Nos. 1,2 and 13 have preferred the present Appeal. 5. Both the Courts below have given the concurrent finding that defendant No.1 has failed to prove that his father Ramchandra was adopted by Babaji and that he is entitled to half share in the property. These are purely finding of facts. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. 6. Therefore,the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)