-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET CONTINUATION SHEET CONTINUATION SHEET SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.320 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.320 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.320 OF 2006 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court’s Court’s or orders or directions Judge’s orders & Registrar’s orders. ............................................................. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the Appellants None for the Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: APRIL 10, 2006. APRIL 10, 2006. APRIL 10, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Shri Patwardhan for the Appellants. He submitted that the suit filed by the original Plaintiffs was not maintainable as the daughter of the Defendant No.1 was not made party to the suit. He submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse so far as the issue regarding paternity of the original Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 is concerned. 2. I have considered the submissions. So far as non-joinder of the parties is concerned the Defendants contended that the daughter of the Defendant No.1 has not been impleaded as a party. The Trial Court has considered the objection raised -2- by the Defendants and has come to the conclusion no case was made out that the daughter of the Defendant No.1 was the beneficiary of the 1994 State amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore, during the lifetime of her father she will not get any share. 3. So far as the issue of paternity is concerned, it appears that the marriage between the Respondent No.1 and deceased Appasaheb seems to be an admitted position and that is the reason why section 112 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been invoked, and in my view rightly, by the Courts below. 4. There is no error in findings of the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge. Judge. Judge.