1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No.852 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No.12461 OF 2010 Shri Gulabsing Segi Vasave Age 45 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Devalipada, Tq. Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar. Duly authorised power of attorney holder for following appellants: 1] Narpat Segji vasave, Since deceased through his legal heir, Smt. Durgabai W/o Narpat Vasave, Age 42 years, Occu. Household, 2] Dharmadas Segji Vasave, Age 45 years, Occu. Agriculture, 3] Rajesh Segji Vasave, Age 37 years, Occu. Agriculture, 4] Ravindra Segji Vasave, Age 35 years, Occu. Agriculture, 5] Chiman Segji Vasave, Age 33 years, Occu. Agriculture, 6] Jalubai Segji Vasave, age 65 years, Occu. Agriculture, All are R/o Devalipada, Tq. Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS Fattehsingh Lalji Vasave, Age 29 yers, Occu. Labour Work, R/o Dudhve, Tq. Navapur, District Nandurbar .. RESPONDENT ... 2 Shri A.G. Magre, Advocate for appellants CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : The present respondent is the original plaintiff. The present respondent filed a suit praying for partition and separate possession half share in the suit property. The suit came to be decreed. It is held by the Trial Court that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit land. Thereafter, the present appellants i.e. original defendant Nos. 1 to 6 preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Dfendant Nos. 1 to 6 have approached this Court assailing the Judgment of the Courts below. 2. Shri Magare, learned Counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the plaintiff has not been in a position to prove that he is son of Lalji. The certificate, which 3 was produced, does not inspire confidence and the same is not as per the provisions of statute. Shri Magre, learned Counsel for the appellants further contended that the mother of the plaintiff had instituted a suit which was compromised. In that view, the present suit filed by the plaintiff, would not be maintainable by principle of res-judicata. According to him, the defendants are in possession of the property since beginning, and no action has been taken by the plaintiff for long slumber. On this count, he contended that the suit filed by the defendant is barred by limitation. 3. On perusal of the Judgments of the Courts below, it is manifest that both the Courts below have discussed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the natural son of Lalji and he has right in the suit property. The earlier suit, where mother of the plaintiff was party would not have any bearing on the present suit. 4. The Courts below have also held that 4 the customary law is applicable to the parties, in which daughters do not have any share. In that view, the objection of Shri Magare, learned Counsel for the appellants, that the daughters are not made party also would not be tenable. It is observed, that the defendants have failed to adduce any evidence and controvert the contentions of the plaintiff in evidence. 5. In the light of concurrent finding of facts, the Second Appeal is sans merit, no substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal, as such, Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 12461 of 2009 does not survive and same is also disposed of accordingly. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 852.09SA