SA.728-04 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL No. 728 OF 2004 Raghunath Dnyandeo Pawar ...Appellant Vs. Dnyandeo Namdeo Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. S. M. Oak, for the Appellant. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JANUARY 27, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The appellant is original plaintiff. He had filed a suit for partition and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from selling the suit property. Respondent No.1 is father of the plaintiff and respondent No.3 is his brother. The trial Court dismissed the suit. This order was confirmed in appeal. It is submitted that the substantial question of law raised in the Second Appeal is – whether respondent No.1 has proved that the suit property is self-acquired property? It was submitted that though the burden to prove this fact was on respondent SA.728-04 - 2 - No.1 and he has discharged the said burden, in my view, it cannot be said that said question is a substantial question of law. Both the Courts having held that respondent No.1 had proved that the property in question was self-acquired property. The said finding is a finding of fact and as such it will not be possible for this Court to interfere with the said concurrent finding of fact. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]