1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 795 OF 2009 1. Janu S/o Vithoba Pawar and others .. Appellants Versus 1. Sahebrao S/o Vithoba Pawar and others .. Respondents Shri Milind M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for the Appellant. Shri A. C. Parandale, Advocate h/f Shri R. N. Dhorde, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 2 dead. The Respondent No. 3 served. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : . The appellants are the original defendants. The present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of suit properties. According to them, the suit properties were owned by Vithoba. The plaintiff No. 1 is the son of Vithoba and plaintiff No. 2 is the wife of Vithoba. So also the defendant No. 2 is the son of Vithoba and 2 Asarabai. According to the plaintiffs, Vithoba had two wives Asarabai and Hausabai. The defendant No. 2 is born to defendant No. 1 from Hausabai, whereas the plaintiff No. 1 is born to defendant No. 1 from Asarabai. Both the Courts decreed the suit of plaintiffs holding the relationship as pleaded by plaintiffs proved. 2. Shri Patil, learned counsel for appellants vehemently contended that, the Courts below have not framed proper issues and only on mere assumptions without any evidence on record have come to the conclusion that Asarabai must be the first wife of Vithoba. There is no proof of marriage nor there is any clinching evidence to that effect. According to him, the ground No. 4 and 6 are the substantial questions of law. 3. Both the Courts have scrutinized the oral evidence led by the parties and also that of independent witnesses i. e. elderly persons, so also have considered the documents produced on record. Though, there is no evidence regarding the exact date and year of marriage of Asarabai, still the Courts below on the totality of the evidence i. e. oral and documentary have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff No. 2 was the first wife of 3 Vithoba and plaintiff No. 1 is the son of Vithoba born from Asarabai. 4. The view taken by the Courts below is plausible view, which cannot be said to be perverse, so as to invoke jurisdiction of this Court U/Sec. 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the light of above, the second appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/August 10