ssm sm sm 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 SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.318 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.318 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.318 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.Prashant Patil for the Appellants. Mr.Vishwanath S.Talkute for Respondent Nos.1 to 7. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 2nd May, 2008 : 2nd May, 2008 : 2nd May, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . This is a Second Appeal filed by the contesting Defendants against the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts holding that the Respondents-Plaintiffs proved that the suit properties are ancestral and joint Hindu family properties; 1/3rd joint share in the Suit properties and therefore, granted the decree for partition and separate possession to that extent. 2. The learned council appearing for the Appellant basically contended that the Suit is barred by limitation in view ( 2 ) of the registered sale-deed dated 30th September, 1977 executed by them in favour of Defendant No.8 and therefore, the suit itself as decreed is impermissible. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has rightly pointed out that the Appellants failed to mention such things in the Written Statement at the relevant time in the Trial Court. Though the Civil Application was moved, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the same for want of evidence and material on record to support the same. 3. The trial Court, therefore, while considering the issues also held that the alienations if any, out of the suit properties is not binding on the Plaintiffs share. The another plea is raised by the Defendants that the Plaintiff No.1 has waived her right to claim share but the Defendant failed to prove the same. On the contrary Defendant No.1 specifically admitted ( 3 ) that the properties are the ancestral properties. 4. The reasoning given by the Court below and the decree as granted, in this background, therefore, cannot be said to be beyond the material on record and law. There is no perversity in the case. 5. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]