1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.354 OF 2010. Kesharbai W/o Nivratti Shere and others ... Appellants. Versus Kasturbai W/o Manik Bagal ... Respondent. ... Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, advocate holding for Mr.M.S.Patil, advocate for the appellants. Mr.A.S.More, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 21.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The present Respondent is the original plaintiff had filed suit for partition and separate possession of the property on the ground 2 that the deceased Kondiba is the original owner of the suit property. Chandrabhagabai, did not have an authority to deal with the said property exclusively and that the plaintiff has 1/3rd share in the suit property bearing S.No.19, admeasuring 1 Hectare 17 Ares. The present appellants have challenged the said decree before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court. 2. Mr.Sonpawale, learned counsel holding for Mr.M.S.Patil, advocate for the appellants contended that the sale-deed is executed by deceased Chandrabhagabai in the year 1993. Chandrabhagabai had right to deal with the property. The plaintiff has not challenged the said sale deed. Without challenging the sale deed, the plaintiff would not be entitled for any relief as the title has already passed pursuant to the said sale deed. Mr.Sonpawale, further contended that the Courts have not discussed the evidence and it is nowhere proved that the suit property was the self-acquired property of deceased Kondiba. 3 3. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, I have gone through the judgments. There is a presumption that the person in whose name the property stands is the owner of the property and it is for the person claiming otherwise to prove the fact. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence have specifically come to the conclusion that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Kondiba and the same is not an ancestral property. The plaintiff being the daughter has share in the property and her step-mother Chandrabhagabai was not the exclusive owner of the property. 4. In view of Article 110 of the Limitation Act, the suit was perfectly within limitation and the plaintiff when has sought substantive relief of partition and separate possession on the decree being passed, the necessary consequence could be, the said sale- deed could not be binding on her share. 5. There is no perversity in the 4 appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law is involved. As such the Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa354.10