(1) SA. 1631.2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1631 OF 2005 Shri Madhukar Bhudo Patil .. Appellant VERSUS Smt. Laxmibai w/o Budho Patil (died) and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11241 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 1631 OF 2005 Shri Madhukar Bhudo Patil .. Applicant VERSUS Smt. Laxmibai w/o Budho Patil (died) and others .. Respondents Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant/applicant Respondent no.1 dead Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.C. Bora, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 22ND APRIL, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard both the counsel. The defendant questions decree in Regular Civil Suit no. 145 of 1987 recorded by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Yawal confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal no. 217 of 1998 by the learned District Judge, Jalgaon. Mr. Patil for the appellant(defendant) submits the substantial question of law in the matter is, whether the first (2) SA. 1631.2005 appellate Court did not commit any mistake in not formulating the points for determination and then discussing the evidence, causing prejudice to the appellant(defendant)? 2] Several properties as illustrated in plaint paragraph no.1 was referred to be distributed amongst the parties as they are ancestral and forming part of joint Hindu family property. Between the plaintiffs and defendants the defendant no.1 is the step son and defendant nos. 2 and 3 are real daughters of plaintiff born to her from the father of defendant no.1 deceased Budho Vishram Patil who expired on 15.01.1978 leaving behind him several suit properties and defendants as his legal representatives. After death of Budho names of defendants as legal heirs are recorded in the revenue record or municipal record. Plaintiff asserts that she was forming a joint Hindu family alongwith defendant no.1 and she was in possession and user of the property as co-owner. Since defendant no.1 being her step son, started ill-treating and neglected to maintain, consequently plaintiff was required to slap a notice dated 31.07.1987, which was refused by defendant no.1 and thereafter, suit referred above came to be filed. 3] The assessment of the evidence by the Court of first instance, in the light of the admitted relations between plaintiffs and the defendants, indeed does not warrant interference. The contention (3) SA. 1631.2005 that few of the properties were self-acquired property of defendant no.1 was negatived, and rightly so. 4] The other point that has been harped being non-formulation of points for determination by the first appellate Court, needs consideration as to causing any prejudice or mis-carriage of justice to the appellant. The learned Principal District Judge discussed the evidence and the pedigree between the parties. The alleged partition deed at exhibit 52 was also considered and, on analysis of the evidence without formulation of points for determination, dismissed the appeal. It is seldom pointed by the appellant before the learned District Judge, there was any prejudice caused when there was no formulation of points. The discussion by the learned Principal District Judge dated 7.7.2005 illustrate that the record was browsed and then only the findings recorded. It will not change colour and complexion to brand as mis-carriage of justice for want of points to be formulated. 5] The substantial question of law would not be available, to be settled between the parties. Hence, Second Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Civil Application no. 11241 of 2005 also stands dismissed. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) arp