1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2009 (Vithoba Madhao Pachbhai vs. Sau. Jani @ Janabai Murlidhar Dahule) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 25, 2009. Heard Shri Sable, learned counsel for the appellant – original defendant. The respondent – plaintiff filed suit claiming three acres portion pointing out that the land was purchased jointly by him and present appellant. That suit has been decreed and lower appellate Court has maintained the judgment and decree of trial Court. Shri Sable, learned counsel contents that since 1955, the appellant – defendant is cultivating the entire land and no grievance was made by the respondent about it at any point of time. He points out that when the sale deed was obtained, the appellant was minor but then there was other ancestral properties and appellant was not given any share in those properties. He points out the plea in written statement that those ancestral properties had 2 gone to the respondent – plaintiff only. He also points out that prayer was made to trial Court to consider equitable distribution of ancestral property. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have perused both the judgments. The plea of adverse possession was not raised by the appellant before any of the Courts. The plea of limitation was raised in Regular Civil Appeal. It is apparent from the discussion of both the Courts that ouster of the respondent – plaintiff has not been established. Not only this, the appellant – defendant did not make any counter claim and did not file any proceedings for reopening alleged inequitable distribution of ancestral property. In fact there is no evidence of any such inequitable distribution of property on record. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.