1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.283 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1389 OF 2010. Gurunath S/o Raghoba Katare ... Appellant. Versus Rajabhau @ Rajaram S/o Raghoba Kathare and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.M.L.Dharashive, advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ashis Jadhavar, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 06.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The appellant is the defendant. The Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of 2 the suit property. The same came to be decreed. The appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 2. Mr.Dharashive, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the marriage of the daughters have taken place prior to 1993, they will not be entitled to the share in the suit property. He further contends that all the properties are not subject matter of the suit i.e. there is one more house property which is not made subject matter of the suit and as such the suit for partition itself was not maintainable. 3. Both the Courts have concurrently held that suit property was purchased by Raghoba, who is the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1. In view of the fact that the said property is the self-acquired property of Raghoba, sons and daughters will inherit the property in equal shares. No fault can be found on the said part of the judgment. The contention of Shri Dharashive, learned counsel that the house 3 property was not included. The plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4 have categorically submitted that they have relinquished their rights in the house property. The plaintiff No.1 has contended that he has reserved his right. The said house property is an ancestral property and the suit property was self-acquired property of Raghoba. Be that as it may, the appellant will be entitled to take plea of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code in a subsequent suit that would be or is filed by the plaintiff No.1 and the Court would decide the same in accordance with law. The Second Appeal as such is dismissed being devoid of any substantial question of law. 4. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa283.10 4