1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2010 Vithabai w/o Shivlingappa Todkar ...Appellant VERSUS Gaurishankar s/o Shivlingappa Todkar & others ...Respondents ..... Shri R.D.Biradar, advocate for the appellant Shri S.R.Choukidar, advocate for respondent no. 2 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 13 th JANUARY, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri R.D.Biradar, advocate for the appellant and Shri S.R.Choukidar, advocate for respondent no. 2. 2 The parties are referred hereinafter as per their original status in the suit. 3 Unsuccessful plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and 2 order of dismissal of Regular Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2004, passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-2, Majalgaon on 19.7.2007, confirming the judgment and order of dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 204 of 1991 by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Majalgaon on 23.1.2002, which was filed by the plaintiffs herein before the said court for the purpose of declaration that the suit properties are owned by the joint family of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff-Shivling being the karta is in possession of the suit property, and also requesting for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the alleged peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. 4 Admittedly, the suit before the trial Court proceeded ex parte against defendant no.1 and defendant nos. 3 and 4 proceeded without written statement and the contesting party was only defendant no.2, who allegedly claimed to be second wife of plaintiff- Shivling. 5 However, considering the evidence and submissions on record, it appears that the plaintiffs failed to prove and establish that the suit properties are owned and possessed by the joint family of deceased Shivling and defendant no.1, as well as they have not purchased the same out of the income of their joint family. Hence, 3 the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit which was assailed before the learned Ad hoc District Judge-2, Majalgaon in Regular Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2004 and learned Ad hoc District Judge-2, Majalgaon also rightly dismissed the said appeal. 6 In the circumstances, no substantial question of law could be formulated in the present appeal and present appeal lacks merits, and therefore, same stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/sa340.10