1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.290 OF 2010. Narayan S/o Banaji (Parbata) Lakhe and others ... Appellants. Versus Purbhabai W/o Banaji Lakhe and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.D.Biradar, advocate for the appellants. Mr.M.M.Patil (Beedkar), advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 04.10.2010. PER COURT 1. This is defendants' Second Appeal. The present Respondents had filed a suit for recovery of possession of land bearing S.No.40 (Gat No.5) 2 admeasuring 5 acres 25 gunthas as well as house No.16 being Stridhan and partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in respect of other properties. The trial Court held the properties i.e. S.No.40 and house to be the Stridhan property of plaintiff No.l Purbhabai and the rest of the properties were held as joint family properties and the plaintiffs were granted 1/3rd share. The defendants preferred an appeal. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal holding only land S.No.40 to be the Stridhan property of plaintiff No.1 and all other properties to be joint family properties. The shares were modified. 2. The defendants being aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate Court holding land S.No.40 to be the Stridhan property of the plaintiff has assailed the said judgment before this Court. Mr.Biradar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no registered instrument in favour of the plaintiff No.1 to claim ownership in respect of the said property and as such the said property can not be held to 3 be the absolute property of the plaintiff No.1. He also contended that the said property was being shown as joint family property since beginning and as such should have been treated as joint family property. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the respective parties, I have gone through the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. It is evident that said land S.No. 40 stood in the name of Vithalrao i.e. father of Purbhabai and thereafter, it was cultivated by Banaji. It was mutated in the name of Banaji as husband of Pattedar i.e. the property was of Purbhabai and Banaji was cultivating the same. From the record it does not appear to be disputed fact that the property initially was owned by the father of the plaintiff No.1 and from the father the plaintiff No.l got the said property and it has been characterised as a Stridhan. The relationship between Vithal and Purbhabai is not disputed. Once it devolved in the name of plaintiff No.1, it became the female's property and female's property can never be blended in 4 joint family property. 4. In light of the same, no error is committed by the Courts below in holding the land S.No.40 to be the Stridhan of plaintiff No.1. No substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal. As such the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa290.10 5