1 IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 621 OF 2009 Udhav S/o Hanmant Pandilwar and others .. Appellants V E R S U S Shashikalabai W/o Laxman Pandilwar and others .. Respondents .... Mr. M.V.Deshpand, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Suraj V.Gundre, Advocate holding for Mr. S.G.Rudrawar,Advocate for the respondents .... CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2009 PER COURT : 1. The appellants/Original plaintiffs are challenging the concurrent findings on facts on which their suit was dismissed. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that their ancestors Keshav and others and ancestors of the respondents Kishan and Rajaram were brothers. Till 1941, the names of all brothers were shown as joint owners of the suit properties. But, in the year 1967 mutation was effected and names of ancestors of the appellants/plaintiffs were removed from the revenue record. It is their case that despite of this, till 2 1985, the respondents were giving them share in the crops of the suit lands and they continued in joint possession. They filed suit for partition and separate possession in the year 1985. The respondents/Original defendants took stand that suit lands were not joint family properties. They contended that the suit lands were allotted to the shares of their ancestors and that ancestors of the appellants/plaintiffs were given different lands. They also asserted that suit was filed beyond period of limitation. Therefore, survival of claim of the appellants mainly depending on two questions of fact. 1. Whether the suit the suit lands were ancestral joint family properties of both parties of the suit ? 2. Whether the suit was filed within period of limitation ? 3. On both the points, the courts below held against the appellants. The appellants adduced evidence of only one appellant, who admitted that certain other lands were allotted to his ancestors. The Courts below on the basis of this admission held that long back, some time prior to 1967, the partition had taken place between ancestors of the appellants/Original plaintiffs and the ancestors of some of the defendants. The Courts below also held 3 that the suit was filed belatedly and is hopelessly barred by limitation. This finding of facts also appears to be based on cogent reason, mainly that the offending mutation entry 1967 remained unchallenged for almost 18 years. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants tried to bring my notice that certain documents brought on record by the appellants were completely ignored by the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court, he submitted that this would result into recording perverse findings. This objection is not acceptable. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and found that the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court took overall views of the matter and discussed the facts, I do not accept the contention that he had completely overlooked the certain documents. In view of this, there is practically no substance in the second appeal. There is no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, so it should fail. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. ( A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ca.698.09