IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.427 OF 2007. APPEAL NO.427 OF 2007. APPEAL NO.427 OF 2007. Vishwas Atmaram Patil & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Bhimrao Atmaram Patil & Ors. ...Respondents Shri P.R. Arjunwadkar for the Appellants. Shri S.S.Patwardhan for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 16th January, 2008. : 16th January, 2008. : 16th January, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard advocates appearing for the appellants. The appellants are defendant Nos.1 to 6 in a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The trial Court decreed the suit. The appellate Court has confirmed the decree. There are two submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants. The first submission is that the case pleaded by the appellants of prior partition could not have been discarded. The second submission is that the properties standing in the name of the second respondent (original plaintiff No.2) ought to have been included as suit properties as the same have been acquired by the second defendant’s husband from the income of joint family properties. He submitted that no evidence was led by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to show that the properties standing in the name of the second plaintiff (2nd respondent) were her own properties. He ... 2 ... pointed out that infact the second plaintiff has not stepped into witness box. 2. I have considered the submissions. It is true that the second plaintiff has not stepped into witness box. When the first plaintiff entered into witness box, not even a suggestion has been given during the cross-examination that the properties standing in the name of the second plaintiff were not acquired by her from his own income. Apart from this when the first appellant (first defendant) stepped into witness box he has only made a vague statement that husband of the second plaintiff acquired the property in the name of the second plaintiff. He did not state that the property was acquired by the husband of the 2nd plaintiff from the income of the joint family property. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects, the courts below and especially the Appellate Court have negatived the said contention raised by the appellants. As far as partition alleged by the appellant is concerned, the courts below have found that neither the oral nor documentary evidence establishes factum of partition. I find no necessity to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the courts below considering the evidence led by the parties. No substantial question of law arise. Second Appeal is dismissed. ... 3 ... JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE