2501sa9.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.9 of 2011. Mahadeo Umaji Kalamkar (dead) through Ashok s/o Mahadeo Kalamkar and ors. .vs.. Deonath Laxman Kalamkar (dead) through Smt.Tulsabai wd/o Deonath Kalamkar and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr.G.M.Shitut, Adv. for the appellants. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 25th January, 2011. 1. This second appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 22/07/2010 passed in Reg.Civil Appeal No. 547 of 1998 by which the decree in favour of the appellants/plaintiff in Reg.Civil Suit No.1977 of 1994 came to be set aside and the suit came to be dismissed. The appellant herein was the original plaintiff and respondent herein was the defendant, who claim through a common ancestor Buchaji Kalamkar. The appellants are the grand-children of said Buchaji, being the sons of Umaji, the appellants filed said Reg.Civil Suit No.1977 of 1994 for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The Trial Court, on the basis of the documentary evidence on record and more especially relying upon the plan submitted for renovation of the house property, came to a conclusion that the suit property was a joint family property and therefore, decreed the plaintiff’s suit 2501sa9.11.odt 2 to the extent that it granted 1/6th share in the suit property to the plaintiff. 2. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Trial Court, the respondent herein carried the matter in appeal and filed Reg.Civil Appeal No.547 of 1998. The Appellate Court, on an appreciation of the documentary evidence on record and the attendant circumstances that Buchaji and Umaji were living separately since the year 1960 and also considering the fact that the father of the plaintiff had never claimed the share right from 1973 up to the date of his demise, as also considering the relevant entries in the Municipal record, which stood in the name of the defendants, dismissed the said suit. The Appellate Court has recorded a finding that said Buchaji, who is the ancestor, and Umaji were living separately since 1960 and therefore, the plaintiffs being the children of said Umaji would not have a share in the properties. In my view, considering the findings of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the above appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute