IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIION SECOND APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2008 Vishnu Namdeo Patil Sawant & Ors. ..Appellants (Orig. Plaintiffs) Vs. Tukaram Dnyanu Patil & Anr. ..Respondents (Orig. Defendants) Mr. P.D.Dalvi, Advocate, for the appellants. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 11th September,2008 DATE: 11th September,2008 DATE: 11th September,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. 2. This is the Second Appeal filed by the original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that the land Survey No.211/1A admeasuring 31 Ares of Village Kande, Taluka Shirala is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have half share in the said land. The defendant no.1 also held half share in that land. The defendant No.1 sold away 6 anna share to Balaso Ganapati Moharekar and Kisan Ganapati Moharekar. At that time, the defendant No.1 had agreed that as and when he would decide to sell 2 anna share in the land, the plaintiffs would have right to purchase it. According to them, in 1988, the defendant no.1 also received the consideration amount from the plaintiffs and put them in possession of two anna share in the said land. It is contended that the defendant No.1 wanted to sell the two anna share and had sold the same to defendant No.2 on 12.12.1989. The plaintiff claimed right of pre-emption to purchase that land. The defendants contested the suit and denied the right of pre-emption. According to them, the defendant No.1 was the exclusive owner and in possession of half share in the land survey No.211/1A. The grandfather of the defendants died before 1955 and since then both the branches were living separately and the parties are not members of the joint family nor they were joint owners of the suit property and therefore the plaintiffs have no right of pre-emption. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the contention of the plaintiffs that there is a joint family and that they have right of pre-emption to purchase a part of two anna share out of the share of the defendant No.1. Hence, the suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.78 of 2006. That appeal also came to be dismissed. 4. There is a concurrent finding of fact that the parties were separated since 1955. Even according to the pleadings of the plaintiffs themselves, the defendant no.1 was holding 8 anna share in the said land and apparently it was separated and he had sold 6 anna share out of his 8 anna share held by him long back. The plaintiffs claimed right of pre-emption on the remaining 2 anna share. As they were not co-owners or joint owners when the defendant No.1 sold his remaining share in the land to the defendant no.2 in 1989, the plaintiffs cannot claim the right of preemption. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon Reshma & Ors. vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors. AIR Reshma & Ors. vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors. AIR Reshma & Ors. vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1064 2000 SC 1064 2000 SC 1064 in support of his contention. The facts of that case are totally different. 6. As I find no substantial question of law involved in the present Appeal, the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)