1 sa545-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.545 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1783 OF 2008 Hirabai Dattatraya Bongarde and anr. ..Appellants Vs Lata Kishor Bhosale and anr. ..Respondents -- Mr.V.B.Rajure, for appellants. Mr.P.D.Dalvi, for respondent no.1. None present for respondent no.2. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 15 th APRIL, 2011 P.C: Heard Mr.V.B.Rajure, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.P.D.Dalvi, learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2] Appellants who are original defendant nos.1 and 3 have preferred this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 29 th July, 2003 passed by the learned IInd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ichalkaranji in Regular Civil Suit No.813 of 2000 as also judgment and 2 sa545-10.sxw decree dated 20 th June, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Ichalkaranji in Regular Civil Appeal No.124 of 2005. 3] First respondent – Lata Kishor Bhosale instituted suit for partition and separate possession in ancestral property as also for permanent injunction against the defendants in the suit and for relief of mesne profits. Learned trial Judge partly decreed the suit and declared that respondent no.1/plaintiff has 1/12 th share, appellant no.1/ original defendant no.1 – Hirabai has 5/12 th share, appellant no.2/defendant no. 3 Rajashri has 1/12 th share and finally respondent no.2/original defendant no.4 Suman has 5/12 th share in the suit properties. Defendant nos.1 and 3 preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.124 of 2005. During the pendency of Appeal, Raosaheb s/o.Dattatraya Bongarde and Suman who was second wife of Dattatraya died. The learned trial Judge, in paragraph 15 of the judgment, held that Suman being second wife of Dattatraya could not inherit any property left by Dattatraya, since deceased. As against this, learned District Judge, in paragraph no.17 of the judgment, held that since Suman was second wife of Dattatraya, Raosaheb could not acquire share as co-parcener. However, he was entitled to claim share in the share of Dattatraya. In the light of this position, the learned District Judge partly allowed the Appeal preferred by defendant nos.1 and 2 and declared that respondent no.1/original plaintiff has 1/8 th in the suit properties. He further held that appellant no. 1/original defendant no.1 – Hirabai is entitled to 5/8 th share in the suit 3 sa545-10.sxw properties. 4] Mr.Rajure submitted that learned District Judge committed error in declaring shares in the properties in as much as Suman cannot acquire any share left by Raosaheb. I am co unable to accept this submission as, admittedly, Suman is the mother of Raosaheb and she being class-I heir is entitled to get share in the share of Raosaheb. I, therefore, do not find any error committed by the learned District Judge. There is no substantial question of law in this Appeal. Second Appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 1783 of 2008 does not survive and the same also stands dismissed. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]