1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No.595 of 2005 Gangabai w/o Hariba Mudale .. Appellant/ Plaintiff versus Dnyanoba Mahadu Wadhvankar .. Despondent/ Defendant ---- Shri H.K.Mundhe, Advocate, for the appellant. CORAM: P.R. Borkar, J. DATE: 25th June 2009. P.C. 1. This second appeal is by original Plaintiff. Her suit for partition and separate possession and recovery of Rs.1,37,830.54 ps. with interest was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, on 15.10.1998. That judgment and decree is further confirmed in appeal by Additional District Judge, Udgir camp at Ahmadpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2001 decided on 9.3.2004. 2 2. Learned counsel for the appellant took me through the judgment of the trial court, as also of the first appellate court. 3. Some of the facts which are not in dispute are that, the plaintiff is daughter of Govinda who died in 1939. At the time of his death, he was member of joint family along with his uncles Gunda and Bala. Together, they had 1/2 share in the property originally held by Rama. At the time of deposition on 1.9.1998, plaintiff's age was 65 years and she stated that when her father died, she was 10 years old and thereafter her mother performed second marriage and she (pltff.) went with her mother to village Atnoor Gavhan Taluka Udghir. Plaintiff also admitted that her mother performed her marriage and since then she is living at village Lali. In other words, Govinda died in or about 1939 and in 1943 or so, mother of the plaintiff remarried. Hindu Succession Act came into force in 1956. Property was ancestral property and not separate property. Admittedly, property was subsequently acquired by the Government and share in the compensation amount is being claimed in the suit. 3 3. After considering the reasons given by the trial court in paragraphs 22 to 25 of its judgment, in my opinion, no error seems to have been committed in dismissing the suit. Appellant-plaintiff did not inherit the property. Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 was not applicable to erstwhile Nizam State and by virtue of Hyderabad Hindu Women's Right to Property (Extension to Agricultural Lands) Act, 1954, such right was extended for the first time in 1954. 4. Therefore, considering above aspects, second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/oo sa595.05