1 57 sa 631.10.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.631 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1662 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.631 OF 2010 Smt.Vimal Dattatray Kadu ..Appellant. Vs. Smt.Suman Janardan Kadu & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Arjun Kode for the appellant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 20/12/2010. PC: 1 This second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in a suit instituted by respondent no.1-plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of Janardhan Kadu and being his sole legal heir is the owner of suit properties. She also prayed for possession of the suit properties. This appeal is filed by the original defendant no.3. Admittedly, defendant no.3 did not file written statement before the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant to my specific querry, whether defendant no.3 had 2 57 sa 631.10.doc challenged ‘no w.s.’ order passed against him at any point of time, replied in negative. That apart, even before the first appellate court, he did not file any application, either allowing him to lead any evidence or for seeking remand of the matter and allowing her to file written statement. I perused the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant before the first appellate court. In the grounds of appeal also he did not raise any ground regarding non-filing of the written statement. It is against this backdrop. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. He raised two contentions: Firstly, the appellant-defendant no.3 was not properly represented before the courts below, and secondly, the courts below aught to have framed an issue of tenancy and referred it to the tenancy authorities under section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. None of these contentions were raised before the first appellate court. In the absence of a plea that defendant no.3 was in possession of the suit property as a tenant, there was no question of the trial court framing any issue regarding tenancy and referring the same to the tenancy authorities under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. I do not find any error of law committed by the courts below in deciding the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. Considering that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below and 3 57 sa 631.10.doc that there is sufficient material on record to sustain these findings and considering that no substantial question of law is either raised or involved in the appeal, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. 2 Consequently, the Civil Application is also disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)