1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2007 Shri Pandurang Shankar Malkar (since deceased through LRs) 1A. Smt. Kusum Pandurang Malkar & ors. ....Appellants V/s. Smt. Tarabai Krishna Malkar & ors. ....Respondents Mr. S.D.Patil for the appellants CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED :16th June, 2008 P.C. . Both the Courts after considering the material and evidence led by the parties, concurrently held that plaintiff proved that the property in question is in the name of respondent no.1 on 29-11-1957 is joint Hindu Family property of plaintiffs and defendants and, therefore, further held that plaintiffs proved that defendant no.1 got entered his name in CTS record without any notice to them. 2. At the same stroke as defendant no.1 being a contesting defendant, specifically raised a defence in para-10 of written-statement that property in question is self acquired property but failed to prove the same. 2 3. In the suit for partition when a party has specific case that property in question is self acquired property and not the joint Hindu property, but he fails to prove the same, in such cases, the case of other side gets support apart from by the material available on record. The presumption of jointness in such matters unless rebutted specifically needs to be respected for the purpose of granting partition. 4. In the present case as the defendant failed to prove contrary, it means there is no further defence available to support his case. This is also a reason and as rightly concurred by the Courts below to grant a decree with cost. 5. There is no perversity in the order, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]