1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.492 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1262 OF 2010 Shri Baban Shankar Gite .. Appellant. Vs. Sau.Sulochana Maruti Shinde and ors.. Respondents. Mr. M.M.Sathaye. for the appellant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 24/11/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this second appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 20.1.2010, rendered by the appellate court, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants, whereby they had challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Jr Dn, Nashik Road, in a suit instituted by respondent no.1 for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit properties. The suit properties are self acquired properties of the father of the plaintiff and defendant nos 1 to 4 and their uncle, i.e. the real brother of their father. Mr. Sathaye, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the properties of the uncle, who died issueless and intestate, T 2 cannot be treated as joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants and are not liable to be partitioned. In other words, he submitted, the plaintiff, in any case, would not be entitled for any share in the properties of their uncle who died issueless. He submitted that the appellant was staying with his uncle in a different village at the time of his death and, therefore, he alone would be entitled for his properties. This submission has been rejected by both the courts below, concurrently holding that the parties to the suit, are entitled for 1/5th share each in the properties of their father and of their uncle. Learned counsel for the appellant could not and did not demonstrate as to why and how the appellant alone is entitled for the properties of the uncle when admittedly the uncle died issueless and intestate. In my opinion, both the courts below, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, have rightly held that the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled for 1/5th share each in the suit properties. No substantial question of law is either involved or raised in this appeal. The Second Appeal is dismissed. The civil application also stands disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) 3