(1) SA. 212.2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2002 Madhav @ Baban Govind Kulkarni .. Appellant VERSUS Sushila S/o Keshav Kulkarni and others .. Respondents AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3800 OF 2002 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2002 Madhav @ Baban Govind Kulkarni .. Applicant VERSUS Sushila S/o Keshav Kulkarni and others .. Respondents Mr. Subodh Shah, Advocate h/f. Mr. D.P.Palodkar, Advocate for the appellant/applicant None present for respondent nos. 2A and 4 though served S.A. stands abated against respondent no.3 and S.A. stands dismissed against respondent nos.1 and 5 to 7 as per the Courts order dated 12.6.2009 ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) is entitled to 1/4th share for the suit property, which consists of two pieces of agricultural lands and one house at village Chas, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. The respondent no.1 happened to be widow of the appellant's (2) SA. 212.2002 brother. It is common ground that the lands and the house originally belonged to the common ancestors of the parties one Govind. It is also common ground that the elder brother of the appellant Devidas was cultivating the lands as karta of the family. During his lifetime, Devidas allowed mutation of land gat no. 115/2, to be mutated in the name of the appellant. 2] In 1966, the appellant agreed to pay Rs. 75/- per year to the respondent no.1 as her share in the income of the joint family property-the agricultural land survey no. 115/3. This payment, according to the respondent no.1 continued till 1982 and thereafter, when she demanded partition, it was refused and so, the suit was filed. . The appellant (original defendant No.1) took up a stand that the land survey no. 115/2 was given to him by all the brothers, after relinquishing their shares in it. He said this was done because he had spent certain amounts for the family. The Courts below did not accept this part of the defence and recorded cogent reasons for coming to such conclusion. . The other defence of the appellant was that he had ousted the respondent no.1-plaintiff from the suit property way back in 1956 and so the suit was barred by limitation. The Courts below did not accept this obviously because the admitted facts mentioned above. (3) SA. 212.2002 3] The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant tried to contend that the Courts below did not appreciate the circumstances that despite the fact that Devidas was alive and karta of the family, there occurred a mutation of land survey no.115/2 in favour of the appellant and this would strongly suggest that this was done on account of relinquishment. He also pointed out that the factum of mutation has not been explained by the respondent no.1 and others in the pleadings, but the Courts below did not accept this argument saying that such mutation could have been effected for other reasons. Thus, the appellant could not prove his defences. 4] The finding of facts are concurrent and no interference in them is called for at this stage. There is hardly any question of law arising in this appeal. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently Civil Application no. 3800 of 2002, seeking stay also stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp