( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 114 OF 1990 1. Manju Lahanu Tambe; .. Appellants [Ori.res.1 & 2] 2. Gangubai Mahadeo Baglane Versus 1. Mankabai Lahanu Tambe .. Respondent [1 to 3 – ori. 2. Rajkuwar d/o. Lahanu Tambe, since plnts & 4 to 10 deceased per L.Rs. Ori.def.4 to 10] (a) Maruti Bhaguji Sirsat; (b) Anusaya d/o. Maruti Sirsat, Age.9 months, minor, under guardianship of father Maruti Bhaguji Sirsat, 3. Pramila d/o. Lahanu Tambe; [appeal dismissed as per order dated 11.12.1991] 4. Yeshodabai w/o. Murlidhar Bajgude; 5. Kausalyabai w/o. Antram Chakare; 6. Sushilabai w/o. Rustum Bedre; 7. Mandodaribai w/o. Babasaheb Gath; 8. Rajendra Vishwanath Jadhav; 9. Shivaji Vishwanath Jadhav; 10.Kadubai w/o. Narsing Naikwade; 11. Kantabai w/o. Madhukar Pingle ( 2 ) Shri S.C. Bora, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 01.07.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This is an appeal preferred by original defendant No.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned III Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed, in Regular Civil Suit No. 39 of 1980, whereby the decree for partition and separate possession was passed and the plaintiffs who are present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were allotted 3/10th share in the suit house and the landed property. 2. The Second Appeal is admitted by order dated 14.03.1990. No substantial question of law was framed at that time. Appellant/defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have taken plea that said respondent No.1 had married Lahanu when first wife of Lahanu was alive and their marriage is void. The only question that could be arise in this Second Appeal is :- Whether it is proved that respondent Mankabai was legally wedded wife of Lahanu? ( 3 ) 3. Heard Adv. Shri S.S. Bora for the appellants. No one is present for the respondents. In para 10 of the Trial Court judgment, the relevant evidence is discussed. It is stated therein that respondent No.1 Mankabai and her maternal uncle Ashruba Bahir were examined as witness and they stated that marriage of respondent No.1 with Lahanu took place before 45 years at village Pimpergavan. At that time first wife of Lahanu by name Mankabai, who was admittedly mother of appellant Nos. 1 and 12 had expired. The Trial Court so also the First Appellate Court relied upon the evidence led by respondent No.1 and her witness. After going through the evidence and the judgments, in my opinion, there is no sufficient cause to take different view. In the circumstances, this appeal must fail. Therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa114.90