1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 274/2011 (Maroti Zolbaji Vaidya vs. Smt.Sunderabai Arjunrao Mohitkar and others ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.N. G Jetha, Adv.for appellant Mr S.S.Doiphode, Adv.for Respondent No.1 CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI,J. DATED : 14th September,2011. Heard. There is a decree passed in favour of the respondent no.1 - sister who had brought suit for partition against her brother. Mr N G Jetha, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that said Sunderabai is about 62 years of age and long after her marriage, she brought the suit for partition and, therefore, in the wake of fact and admission from Sunderabai that everything was done for her marriage expenses, ornaments etc, and had orally relinquished her share, the suit for partition ought not to have been decreed by the Appellate Court. Per contra, Mr Doiphode, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 opposed the Appeal and argued that the appeal only involves questions of fact and at any rate in accordance with 2 law, now the sister has becomes a coparcener and, therefore, she is consequently entitled to the share in the ancestral property which the Court below has been pleased to grant by making the decree. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. I find that the plaintiff -Sunderabai has been granted 1/4th share in the estate and in accordance with law, the appellant has been granted the share which is obviously more than 1/4th. That apart, in the wake of subsequent development in law, the sister has a right to claim partition in the ancestral property and that is why the decree has been passed in her favour allowing her 1/4th share in the ancestral property. The question about oral relinquishment has been dealt with by the Court below and the other submissions made by Mr Jetha that in the marriage everything was given and, therefore, there was no need to pass the decree for partition is an argument which is not valid in law. The Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact about her entitlement. No substantial question of law is involved. In the result, I find no merit in the Appeal. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE sahare