1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No.800 of 2009 with C.A.No.11813 of 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. This Second Appeal is preferred against concurrent judgments of the Courts below in Special Civil Suit No.67 of 1995 and RCA No. 107/2002. The appellant is purchaser of one of the piece of land bearing Gat No.244 to the extent of half share comprising of 5 hectares 36 Ares. The suit properties comprise of three (3) lands. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that she being one of the daughter of deceased Ratnabai, was entitled to inherit 1/3rd share of the property left by Ratnabai, who died in 1977. Said Ratnabai had left two daughters i.e. Kashibai (plaintiff) and Annapurnabai besides a son i.e. Shivram (defendant No.1). Original defendant No.2 Anna is the son of defendant No. 1 and alienated the said parcel of land in favour of the appellant. The concurrent findings of both the Courts regarding right of plaintiff Kashibai to receive 1/3rd share in the suit property is unassailable. Admittedly, plaintiff Kashibai, defendant No.1 Shivram and their sister Anusayabai were the only three heirs left by deceased Ratnabai and, therefore, succession U/s 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 gave each of them equal right to claim the share. In this view of the matter, the partition decree can not be challenged as the judgments of both the Courts are concurrent and no substantial question of law is involved. 2. While dismissing the present appeal, it is directed that in the course of execution U/s 54 of the C.P.C., the Collector may consider, if it is found equitable, to allot the land purchased by the appellant to the share of his vendor i.e. defendant No.2 if such kind of adjustment can be effected without impairing rights of other parties. 3. The appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.13.11.2009. asp/office/sa800.09