1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 823 OF 2008 Tulshiram S/o Pandurang Kompale .. APPELLANT VERSUS Govind S/o Pandurang Kompale & others .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for appellant Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondents CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: The plaintiff had filed suit for partition and separate possession. The said suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The Original plaintiff has assailed the Judgments passed by the Courts below in the present Second Appeal. Shri Gunale, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the plaintiff and defendant both had contributed for the consideration of the suit property, and as the defendant No. 1 is elder brother, therefore, the suit property is purchased in his name. The 2 conduct of the defendant would show that the property was purchased jointly. 2. The plaintiff himself has admitted in his evidence that there was no ancestral property. The case of the plaintiff is that both of them had contributed the consideration amount. It is not a case of joint family property to invoke the exception as provided under Section 4 of Prohibition of Benami Transaction Act. Moreover, the person in whose name the property stand is the owner of the property. The plaintiff could not rebut the said presumption. The evidence to the effect of contribution of consideration is also not forthcoming, as observed by both the Courts below. 3. In the light of the same, no substantial question of law is involved in the present Second Appeal. As such, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 823.08 SA