1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 322 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1553 OF 2006 Ravindra Damodar Purav .. Appellant Vs. Jayawant Damodar Purav & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Kedar J. Patil for the appellant. None for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 9th October, 2009. P.C. 01. Heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. None for the respondent is present. 02. Plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 & 2 are brothers and defendant Nos.3 & 4 are their sisters and defendant Nos. 5 to 7 are their step sisters. All the sisters and step sisters are already married and living with their husbands. In the year 1990, oral partition had taken place between three brothers and the agricultural lands were divided, mutations were effected and the parties were in possession of 2 separate shares. In the year 1998, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 1998 contending that, the partition had not taken place properly and he was not given equal share. Besides that the house property was retained by defendant No. 1 alone and no share was given to him. He claimed that the partition, being unequal, be reopened and the property be put to partition again. Defendant No.1 contended that the house was his self-acquired property and not the ancestral property. According to him, he was in service when the plaintiff and defendant No.2 were school going children. From his salary income, he had constructed the said house and therefore it could not be put to partition. 03. The trial Court after hearing the evidence came to the conclusion that the suit house is the self-acquired property of the defendant No.1 and that no ground was made out for reopening the partition. Accordingly, suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 149 of 2003. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the suit houses were ancestral property and that the partition of 1990 was unequal. Hence, the second appeal. 04. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence came to conclusion that, defendant No.1 was in service and out of his salary income, he 3 had constructed the house and therefore they could not be treated as joint family property. Admittedly, oral partition taken place in the year 1990 and mutation entries were taken and the parties are in separate possession of their shares since then. There is concurrent finding of facts of both the Courts below. In view of the facts and circumstances, no question of law is involved in present appeal. 05. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. 06. As the appeal itself is dismissed, Civil Application No. 1553 of 2006 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J. H. BHATIA, J.)