1 sa259.09 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.259 OF 2005 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Coram: Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : 18.01.2011. 1. Heard Shri B.N. Patil learned counsel for the appellant and Shri A.R. Kale, learned counsel holding for Shri R.B. Deshmukh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Appeal is already dismissed against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as per order dated 26.3.2010. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiff has filed present second appeal, who had lost before the trial court, as well as the first appellate court. The parties are, hereinafter, referred to as per their original status i.e. plaintiffs and defendants. 2 sa259.09 3. Plaintiff filed R.C.S. No.192 of 1988 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa, for partition and separate possession, which was contested by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and also by Defendant Nos. 5 to 7. Defendant No.1 contended that he sold land to the extent of 2 acre 17 gunthas, at the instance of plaintiff No.2 to defendant No.4, and out of the consideration amount received, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 have constructed house and the sale deed of house in his favour is nominal one. 4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contended that land survey No.368-B was purchased by defendant No. 2 from her Stridhan and own earnings. Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 have contended that the land was purchased in the year 1955 from the father of plaintiff No.1. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings and after assessing evidence, the learned trial judge recorded the finding that the suit properties are not ancestral properties 3 sa259.09 and joint family properties which finding was confirmed by the first appellate court, and apparently, considering the evidence and pleadings on record, no interference therein is warranted. 6. Moreover, learned trial court also came to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation to the extent of land survey No.257-D and the first appellate court also concurred with the said finding and I do not find any material on record to interfere therein. 7. Accordingly, there being concurrent findings of the trial court, as well as the first appellate court, on the vital aspects, no substantial question of law could be formulated. 8. Hence, appeal which is sans merits and, therefore, same stands dismissed. pnd/sa259.05 (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)