1 71.sa40.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1276 OF 2011 Shri Subrao Appa Patil. ....Appellant. Vs. Shri Balkrishna Rama Raut (since deceased) through Lrs. Shri Kundlik Balkrishna Raut(since deceased) through Lrs. Chandrakant Kundlik Raut & ors. ....Respondents Mr. S.M. Gorwardkar i/b. Mr. Haribhau Deshinge, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. S.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Respondent No. 2a to 2c. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- OCTOBER 3, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Gorwadkar, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2a to 2c. 2. R.C. Suit No. 55 of 1973 was filed for partition and separate possession in the Court of Learned C.J.J.D. Sangola which was decreed on 23/1/1981 and the Decree has been confirmed by the 2 71.sa40.11 learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Sangli by dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No. 419 of 1981 which was initially filed at District Court Solapur but subsequently transferred to the District Court at Sangli and numbered as Civil Appeal No. 423 of 1987. This impugned Judgment and Decree dated 22/7/2010 is challenged in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr. Gorwardkar submitted that after having rightly held that there is no presumption of holding of property by the joint family, the Appellate Court could not have imposed burden on the Appellant, who was stranger purchaser or his predecessor in title claiming through the branch of Sakharam to prove that the property was self acquired property of Sakharam. He relied upon the cross examination of P.W.1 to contend that since there was absolutely no documentary evidence regarding existence of a joint business of weaving blankets from sheep wool or sale of such blankets; the findings of facts recorded by the Trial Court and Appellate Court are perverse. He also submitted that certain properties which were purchased exclusively in the name of Sakharam prior to the sale of 3 71.sa40.11 joint property has been held to have been purchased from the sale proceeds of the joint family property and hence there is perversity in the findings. 4. I have carefully considered the submission on the basis of available documentary and oral evidence on record. Particularly when the relationship was not disputed and the dates of death of Sakharam, Bapu and Rama were not disputed, the Trial Court has held that the Suit property was joint family property and on independent assessment of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the Appellate Court has also reached the same conclusion. Elaborate reasoning has been given by the learned Judge of the Appellate Court in paragraphs- 18 to 24 of the Judgment and it is also held that the Appellant stranger purchaser has failed to prove that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. No question of law arises. The Second Appeal is dismissed. 5. On account of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil 4 71.sa40.11 Application No. 1276 of 2011 does not survive and the same is also dismissed. 6. At this stage, Mr. Gorwadkar, Advocate for Appellant prays that for enabling the Appellant to approach the Supreme Court, the Decree for partition be stayed. Mr. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Respondent opposes this prayer and points out that there was never any stay operating in favour of the Appellant. 7. I have considered the submissions in this regard. The Decree is for partition and separate possession. Hence, for a period of 10 weeks from today, it is directed that the partition proceedings in all respect will continue but only possession will not be handed over. It is also directed that the Appellant will not part with possession or create any third party right or any interest in the suit properties till execution of the decree is completed in all respects. Ordered accordingly. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)