1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.797 OF 2003 Raghunath s/o Mutaba Jadhav & others Appellants Versus Anita w/o Bhanudas Jadhav & two others Respondents Mr.M.D.Shinde, advocate for appellants. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 04 th August, 2009. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by original defendants raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by both the Courts below. 2 Plaintiff no.2 is daughter of plaintiff no.1, whereas defendant no.4 is husband of plaintiff no.1. Defendants no.1 and 2 are respectively father-in-law and mother-in-law of plaintiff no.1. Defendant no.3 is brother-in-law of plaintiff no.1, whereas defendant no.5 is her sister-in-law. Plaintiffs and defendants form a joint Hindu family and same is still in existence. The Hindu Joint family is having three agricultural properties situate at village Loni Khurd, Taluka Vaijapur. In order to defeat rights of plaintiffs, the agricultural properties have been mutated in the name of defendants no.1 to 3. Plaintiff no.1 is not maintained by defendant no.4 – her husband and they are residing separately. Plaintiff no.2, who is daughter of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.4, is entitled to have share in 2 the ancestral property in view of provisions of Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act. The suit, as such, came to be presented by plaintiffs seeking separation of of their shares in the property. 3 Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. According to them, property bearing land G.No.40 is in fact the property acquired by defendant no.2 out of her own funds and, therefore, it is her self acquired property. Defendants also raised objection to the maintainability of the suit. 4 The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by parties, came to the conclusion that the properties involved in the dispute are ancestral properties and in view of provisions of Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act, on separation of shares, plaintiffs are held entitled to have their share. The trial Court, as such, declared the plaintiffs as entitled to have share in the ancestral properties to the extent of 1/12 th share. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was subjected to challenge at the instance of defendants in Regular Civil Appeal No.391 of 1999. The appeal came to heard and disposed of by Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, who was pleased to dismiss the same by judgment and order dated 27.02.2003. 5 I have perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below and heard arguments advanced by Shri M.D.Shinde, learned Counsel for appellants. 6 In view of provisions of Section 29A of the Hindu Succession 3 Act, status of the daughter is that of coparcener in the family and she is entitled to have share in the ancestral property at partition between other members of the family, Although the property has been distributed amongst defendants, plaintiffs have been left out and no share is allotted to the plaintiffs. Thus, entitlement of the plaintiffs to receive share on partition cannot be questioned. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 6 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In view of this, Civil Application No.5495 of 2003 does not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa79703