IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 665 OF 2006 Ankush Yashwant Dhopavkar...... ...... ...... Appellant V/s Rohini Ramsh Dharje & Ors. ... ........ ...... Respondents. Ms.Rajashree P. Phadke, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.Harshad V. Bhadbhade, Adv. For respondent No.1. CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. 13th OCTOBER, 2008. PC: Heard learned advocates for respective parties. This second appeal is filed by the defendant No.1. A suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 for maintenance under section 39 of the Transfer of Properties Act. Deceased husband of respondent No.1 sold out property belonging to the joint family consisting of self, respondents 1 and 2 to the appellant in the year 1991. It was the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that they have right to receive maintenance from the property. It was their further case that appellant had notice of respondent 1 and 2' s rights on the property sold out to him. Both the Courts below concurrently found that respondents 1 and 2 had right to receive maintenance from the property which was sold to the appellant by deceased husband of respondent No.1. The concurrent finding of fact also recorded that 1 the appellant had notice of respondents 1 and 2' s right. Consequently maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month is granted. There is no dispute that the only property belonging to joint family consisting of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and deceased husband of respondent No.1 was sold out to the appellant. The respondents 1 examined herself to show that she persuaded the appellant not to purchase the property from her deceased husband as he was addicted to liquor. Respondents 1 and 2 also examined one Maruti Ghanekar-P.W.2 who was sarpanch of the village Kelshi. He has specifically stated that the appellant was given to understand that he should not purchase the property from the deceased husband of respondent No.1. Ex. 82 is an application given by respondent No.1 to the gram panchayat objecting to sale by her deceased husband in favour of the appellant. On the basis of this evidence both the Courts below concluded that the appellant had notice of respondent Nos. 1 and 2' s rights to receive maintenance from the property which he purchased. Concurrent findings cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. Appeal is devoid of any merits. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, is involved in the appeal. Hence second appeal stands dismissed. 2. In view of disposal of the second appeal Civil Application 2125 of 2006 does not survive. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 13.10.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 2