( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 662 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4666 OF 2005 Shri Zavaru Yelji Patil deceased .. Appellants through his legal heirs & ors. Versus Shrawan Velji Patil and ors. .. Respondents Shri N.D. Sonwane h/f. Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 23.06.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri N.D. Sonwane h/f. Adv. Shri V.D. Hon for the appellants. This appeal is filed by original defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of partition and separate possession passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chopda in Regular Civil Suit No.170 of 1990, decided on ( 2 ) 27.01.1998, which judgment and decree is further confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1998 by the Additional District Judge, Amalner, by judgment and decree dated 31.07.2004. 2. The relationship between the parties is admitted. Deceased Zavaru was elder brother of respondent No.1. Shrawan. Respondent No.1-Shrawan filed suit for partition. It is case of the appellants that that the property described in para 1A to 1D of the plaint is Zawaru’s self acquired property whereas it is case of respondent No.1 that it is joint family property. The sale-deeds are executed in between 1947-49 and details are given by the Trial Court in its judgment. The first sale-deed is of 1947 for Rs. 100/-, copy of which is produced at Exh.83. House property No. 55 was purchased. Thereafter, in 1947 another house property was purchased after gap of a month for Rs. 50/-. It is house No.56 and the sale-deed is of 1984. Thereafter, agricultural land was purchased by sale-deed Exh.86 and it is property “A” described in plaint. It was purchased in 1948 for Rs.300/-. Subsequently in 1959 ( 3 ) for Rs.80/- property described as “B” in the plaint was purchased. All purchases were in the name of Zawaru. At the relevant time Zawaru and his mother Zamabai were residing together and purchases were from the joint income. It is case of respondent No.1 that all were doing labour work. It is said by respondent No.1 that he was grazing buffaloes of the family. There were two buffaloes in the house. Zawaru and his mother were doing labour work in the lands of others. Zawaru was also working on the saldari basis (yearly agricultural labour). 3. In-fact, there is no witness to the sale-deed. There was no evidence to show that Zawaru was earning sufficient so as to save substantially after incurring expenses of the joint family and had purchased the lands from his savings. In-fact, along with him his mother was also working as agricultural labour. There were buffaloes of the joint family. So out of income of joint family the property appears to have been purchased. ( 4 ) 4. After going through judgments of both Courts below, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Trial Court and the District Court is perverse and the law is now well settled. In Second Appeal when there are concurrent findings of fact and there is no perversity, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact. In view of limitations on this Court and in view of concurrent findings of facts and in absence of substantial question of law, this appeal cannot be admitted. Hence, it is dismissed at the stage of admission. 5. In view of disposal of Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 4666 OF 2005 does not survive. The Civil Application also stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa662.05