1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2010 Vyankat s/o. Ganpati Samudre ....Appellant. Versus Bhagwan s/o. Tirtha Vhodade & Anr. ....Respondents. Mr. M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for appellant. Mr. S.N. Patne , Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED: 14th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The present appellant, who is the original plaintiff, had filed a suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property bearing Gat No. 42 admeasuring 65 R. and Gat No. 46 admeasuring 26 R. Both the Courts have held that Babu, who was predecessor in title of the plaintiff, was not the absolute owner of suit property. Both the Courts have also held that the partition between Babu and Bhagwan had not been proved. 2. Shri. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted, in fact there is an evidence of partition, that Babu is absolute owner of the 2 property, and as such, the appellant is bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration in good faith. Shri. Tripathi further submits that even assuming that Babu had share in the suit property, then still declaration to that extent could not have been refused. 3. The plaintiff had claimed the declaration of ownership in respect of the suit lands and when both the Courts have categorically come to the conclusion that Babu was not exclusive owner of the suit lands, then in such circumstances, declaration in respect of title or ownership of the suit property could not have been granted in favour of appellant. It is always open for the appellant to contend regarding his ownership in respect of share which his predecessor in title Babu had in an appropriate proceedings. 4. In the light of above, no substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal and as such, it is dismissed. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] ssc/sa351.10