1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2007 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. Nandode, Advocate holding for Mr. P.N.Kutti, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2­ A to 2­E. ....................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28/09/2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Nandode, the learned counsel holding for Mr. P.N.Kutti, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2­ A to 2­E. 2. This is an Appeal by the original plaintiff who had filed Suit for partition, separate possession and for declaration in respect of the transaction of the suit property. The Trial Court decreed the Suit and allotted ½ share to the plaintiff, so also declared the property transferred in favour of defendant nos. 3­A to 3­C by defendant no. 1 as illegal. 2 3. The Appeal came to be filed by the defendant. In Appeal, the Principal District Judge, Jalgaon partly allowed the Appeal holding that the plaintiff has 1/3rd share in G.No. 91/B/1 and the other property i.e. G.No. 91/B/2 is owned by the plaintiff by virtue of the will in favour of defendant no. 2 Harchand. 4. Mr. Nandode, the learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is aggrieved by the computation of the share of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Trial Court had rightly held that the appellant is entitled for ½ share in the suit property as in the year 1960 Suit was filed by Annapurnabai and in that Suit Zunabai had specifically agreed by filing Written Statement that the property is joint family property. As such, the plaintiff being the son, would have ½ share in the property. 5. The lower appellate Court relied on the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kesharbai Jagannath Gujar V/s The State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1981 Bombay – 115, wherein the facts of the said case were akin to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the plaintiff has been adopted in the year 1959. The husband of Zunabai died in the year 1948 and the son also died in the year 1953. As such, after the death of Ramdas in the year 1953, the property devolved upon Zunabai and Annapurnabai having ½ share each and in the year 3 1956 the said property became their absolute property and the adoption in the year 1959 would not affect their share. 6. In light of the above, no substantial question of law arises. As such, the Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survives and as such disposed of. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 468.07