1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 518 of 2005 Dnyaneshwar Vairagade Vs. Shantabai Vairagade & 5 Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri P. P. Kotwal Adv. for appellant. Shri N. A. Vyawahare Adv for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 22 nd February, 2008. Heard. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff who has been allotted 1/7th share in the part of the property of which he had sought partition. 2 It was alleged by the plaintiff that the entire property as mentioned in the suit was the joint family property. The Courts below have held that there were only two properties which were joint family properties and the other two properties that is Survey Nos. 250 and 256/2 were not joint family properties. Holding so the learned Judges of the Courts below did not grant any share to the plaintiff in Survey Nos. 250 and 256/2. Being aggrieved by that this Second Appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant contended before me that once there is a joint family property, there has to be a nucleus and therefore both the Courts should have in fact held that the another property which is 3 acquired in the name of other plaintiff is also joint family property. In the instant case no property could be said to be a joint family property for the reason that the very first property which was acquired by Shyamrao was acquired by him in a ceiling case. So it was Shyamrao's self acquired property. The family at that time did not therefore possess any joint family property While Shyamrao was alive all that property that was in possession of Shyamrao is his self acquired property. It cannot, therefore, be said that the income derived from that property could be a joint family income. Further defendants have examined Shantabai the mother of the plaintiff as well as defendants 1 and 2. 4 Her evidence discloses that Dhanraj defendant No.3 was living separately and earning separately for past 11 years. The evidence has been appreciated by the Courts below and they have found that Dhanraj was living separately so also the plaintiffs. Shantabai who could be said to be an independent witness being the mother of both plaintiffs and other defendants, the Courts have rightly relied on her evidence. Her testimony goes to show that Dhanraj has purchased the property from his own income and he purchased it in his own name as well as in the name of younger brother Ashok. In the circumstances I do not find that there is perversity in the appreciation of the evidence. No substantial question of law 5 is involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk