1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.413 OF 2008 Mahadu s/o Patloba Gitte & another Appellants Versus Parmeshwar s/o Bhagwan Gitte & another Respondents Mr.G.O.Wattamwar, advocate holding for Mr.S.G.Rudrawar, advocate for the appellants. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 21st July, 2009. P.C.: 1 Original defendant is raising exception to the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No.165/1994, by II Additional District Judge, Ambajogai, on 26.07.2000, thereby allowing the appeal partly and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 2 Respondents No.1 and 2-plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No.294/1991 claiming partition and separate possession. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 claimed that property in the hands of defendants is ancestral property and plaintiff no.1, being grand son of defendant no.1, and plaintiff no.2 being widow of deceased son of defendant no.1, are entitled to have share in the property. Bhagwan was deceased son of defendant no.1 Patloba, whereas defendants no.2 and 3 are other two sons of defendant no.1 Patloba. On demise of Bhagwan, as plaintiffs were excluded from share in the suit property, they instituted suit against defendants, claiming the relief, as stated above. 2 3 The trial Court recorded a finding that plaintiff no.1 has not established that he is a son borne out of the wedlock of plaintiff no.2 Drupadabai with Bhagwan, deceased son of defendant no.1. The trial Court has held adversely as regards paternity of plaintiff no.1 and recorded a finding that plaintiff no.1 is not a son borne out of the wedlock of plaintiff no.2 and Bhagwan and he is not entitled for partition. The trial Court also recorded a finding that defendants have failed to establish that the suit property is their self acquired property. However, the trial Court has issued restraint order in that behalf. 4 The appellate Court, while allowing the appeal partly, held plaintiff no.2 to be entitled to have 1/4 th share in the suit property. The first appellate Court agreed with the finding recorded by trial Court in respect of paternity of plaintiff no.1. The first appellate Court has observed that in view of provisions of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, widow of deceased member of coparcenary has entitlement to claim share in the property. Widow of deceased son of defendant no.1 i. e. plaintiff no.2 is entitled to have share in the property, which could have been allotted to the share of her husband Bhagwan. 5 The first appellate Court was justified in granting decree in favour of plaintiff no.2. I do not find that the appellate Court has committed any error in granting decree in favour of plaintiff no.2. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 6 Appeal stands dismissed summarily. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa41308