(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No. 423/2010 Abdul Nasir Khan Abdul Hafiz Khan and others. -VERSUS- Abdul Qaiyum Khan Abdul Hafiz Khan and others. ________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 21.01.2011. Heard Shri A.D. Vyawahare, the learned Counsel for the appellants. This Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 343/2002 by the District Judge-1, Nagpur, by which the decree of dismissal of suit filed by the appellants, who is the original plaintiff came to be confirmed. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the defendants to the said suit who are the respondents herein are brothers. The appellant had filed the said Regular Civil Suit No. 416/1992 claiming partition and separation of 1/5th share (2) in the property. The basis on which the said claim was made was that the suit property was bought out of the funds of the joint family business which was run by the appellant and his brothers. Both the Courts below have considered the said case and on the ground that the plaintiff has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence about the joint family business or property or that the plaintiff has not adduced necessary evidence in support of his case, that initially the said business was carried with the help of maternal uncle and maternal grand-father, as also since no independent witness was examined by the plaintiff in support of his claim, that the business was run jointly, recorded a finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the suit property. The issue of the transaction of purchase of the property by the defendant no.1 being hit by the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was neither pleaded nor any application was made to frame any issue in that regard. Having lost in both the Courts below, the said issue is now sought to be agitated. In my view, the same is impermissible. Both the Courts below have concurrently held against the plaintiff by recording findings of fact against the plaintiff. In my view, the Second Appeal does (3) not raise any substantial question of law, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd