IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. ( # ) SECOND APPEAL NO. 598 OF 2008 Shakuntalabai Sandipanrao Choudhari ..Appellant. VERSUS Sandipan Nagorao Choudhari & others ..Respondents. Shri.P.D.Suryawanshi Advocate h/f. Shri.D.N.Suryawanshi, Advocate for appellant. Shri.N.B.Chandare Advocate and Shri.N.B.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 8, 10, 11. WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 599 OF 2008 Shakuntalabai Sandipanrao Choudhari ..Appellant. VERSUS Sandeipan Nagorao Choudhari & others ..Respondents Shri.P.D.Suryanwanshi Advocate h/f. Shri.D.N.Suryawanshi, Advocate for appellant. Shri.N.B.Khandare and Shri.N.B.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 8, 10, 11. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 4th APRIL, 2009. PER COURT 1. Shakuntalabai, the plaintiff is wife of  defendant No. 1 while defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are her sons. The ancestral property of defendant No. 1 was sold to defendant Nos. 4 to 8, 10 and 11. The defendant No. 1 allotted land Gat No. 70 to his sons defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and also Gat Nos. 60 and 100 with 8 Anas equal share. He gifted his other lands Gat No. 69 admeasuring 1 H. 7 R. in favour of his daughter Padminibai in 1986. The defendant No. 1 partitioned the suit properties amongst the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 equally by virtue of mutation entry No. 20. After the death of Padminibai, mutation in the name of her son namely Nitin is sanctioned vide mutation entry No. 70. The portion of land from Gat No. 17 was sold by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 5 and 6 on 18.2.1987. The defendant No. 3 sold his share of Gat No. 100 admeasuring 10 R. to the defendant No. 7 on 9.8.1988. 2. There are other identical sale transactions of  the properties. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed accepted that the wife plaintiff has share in the property of her husband and two sons to the extent of 1/4 share and directed the decree to be sent to Collector for effecting partition. The matter was taken in appeal by the purchasers by two separate appeals being R.C.A.No. 166/94 and R.C.A.No. 188/94. Both the appeals are decided by the common judgment, negativing the claim of the original plaintiff for partition. The said judgment of the first appellate Court in R.C.A.No. 166/94 and R.C.A.No. 188/94 is subject of challenge in the second appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant claimed  that first appellate court erred in holding that the plaintiff has no right to claim partition in the property and second, the counsel canvassed that courts have came to the conclusion that there was no legal necessity to the transactions as the sale deeds Exhs. 66 to 72 do not specify such situation. 4. It is a fact, the findings in relation to the  legal necessity is not tested in the second appeal by the purchasers. However, the first appellate court, gave emphasis to the partition effected by the husband (original defendant No. 1) between his two sons for which the mutation entry No. 20 dated 20th February, 1987 has taken place. There was no flaw in such partition of the property, it could not be treated to be a family arrangement as she conveyed. The court conclusively recorded that the intention of defendant No. 1 in effecting partition of the property is reflected in the mutation entry No. 20 dated 28th February, 1987. The Court has found that plaintiff has not challenged the mutation entry No. 20 (Exh. 8) till her filing the suit nor she has sought any declaration that partition having taken place by her husband amongst her two sons on 18th February, 1987, is not binding on her. The court records for suit simplicitor claiming 1/3 share in the ancestral property coparcenary property is not maintainable as she could not defined to be a coparcener at the time when the suit was instituted. The plaintiff failed to establish that the disputed properties are still joint family properties. She also failed to establish that there was no disruption of joint family consisting of herself and her husband and two sons. Thus, the observations of the first appellate court, warrants no interference. Second appeals lack merit. They are dismissed. [ K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ] ssc/sa598.08