:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.528 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.528 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.528 OF 2008 Prakash Sadaba Dalvi ...Appellant. v. Uttam Sadaba Dalvi & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.K.Suryawanshi , adv. for the Appellant. Mr.M.A.Utagikar , adv. for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 8th September, 2008. DATE: 8th September, 2008. DATE: 8th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. This is the second appeal filed by the original defendant no.2 Prakash. 3. Admittedly the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 to 4 are brothers inter-se and defendant no.5 is their sister. Plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.477 of 1999 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Solapur for partition and separate possession of three properties being house no.140/141 situated in the area of Peth North Kasba, Solapur (Property No.1A), House no.427 situated at Begum Peth, Solapur (Property 1B) and agricultural land bearing gat nos.48/1 to 48/5 situated at Gulawanchi, Taluka: North Solapur (Property 1C). According to the plaintiff, property 1A was purchased in :2: the name of the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 to 4. Property 1B was purchased in the name of their father and property 1C was purchased by the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 4 jointly in 1985 for a consideration of Rs.41,000/-. Plaintiff sought partition and separate possession to the extent of his share. 4. The defendant no.2 alone contested the suit. He had no dispute about the property 1A. He claimed that the property 1B was bequeathed to him by his father under a will. He further contended that even though the sale deed in respect of land, i.e., property 1C is in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 to 4, defendant no.2 alone had purchased that property by paying the consideration amount. 5. After hearing the evidence of both the parties, the learned trial Court rejected both the contentions of the defendant no.2 in respect of property 1B as well as the property 1C. The trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring his share. The trial Court also declared shares of other defendants. Against the decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant no.2 alone filed civil appeal no.124 of 2005. Appeal was dismissed and, therefore, he has preferred this second appeal. 6. There are concurrent findings of the fact by :3: both the Courts below that the defendant no.2 had failed to prove that property 1B was bequeathed to him by his father by executing a will. Both the Courts below came to conclusion that the defendant no.2 had failed to produce any evidence to establish that he alone had purchased the property 1C. Even though there is no specific evidence about contribution by the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 to 4, both the Courts came to conclusion that in view of joint sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 to 4, each of them has share in the property. There is nothing to show that the findings of the Courts below are perverse or per-se wrong. In the face of the concurrent findings of the fact by the Courts below, I find no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. 7. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)