1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 171 OF 2002 Shantaram Sambhaji Salve & Ors. ......Applicants versus Narayan Tulshiram Salve & Ors. ........ Respondents. Mr.Mandar Limaye, Adv. for the Applicants/Appellants Mr.S.S.Hardikar, Adv. for respondent Nos.1-c, d, e & 2-a. CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 26th NOVEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Limaye learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Hardikar for respondent nos. 1(a), ©, (d) and 2(a). The appellants are original defendant nos. 1 to 3 and predecessor of the respondent nos. 1(a) to (e) is original plaintiffs. Suit was filed for partition and separate possession. Trial court decreed the suit. The appellant challenged this decree by filing appeal before lower appellate court, however, the trial court's decree was confirmed. 2 2. One Tulsiram was the common ancestral. Tulsiram had four sons namely Sambhaji, Namdeo, Haribhau and Narayan. Narayan is the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 3 are decendants of Sambhaji. Original defendant no.4 was Haribhau and defendants 5 to 7 are decendants of Namdeo. 3. The property in dispute was purchased on 3-7-1951 in the name of Sambhaji, predecessor in title of the defendant nos. 1 to 3 and Namdeo, predecessor in title of defendant 5 to 7. Defendant 5 to 7 have admitted that though property was purchased in the name of Sambhaji and Namdeo, same was purchased for and on behalf of the joint family consisting of Sambhaji, Namdeo, Haribhau and Narayan. The recitles of the sale deed of the suit property also shows that the vendor agreed to sale the suit property for nominal consideration, considering the services rendered by the fore-fathers of the purchaser. The lower appellate court also recorded the finding on the basis of evidence on record that suit property was treated as joint family property, by the predecessor in title of the defedant nos. 1 to 3. The appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be perverse. 4. Taking over all view of the matter, I am of the considered view that decree of partition and separate possession was rightly granted by the trial court which is confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. I do not find any error which enable me to interfere in the aforesaid decree. Second appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 3 4. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (R.V. More, J.)