( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2010 Maruti Apparao Bhoite .. Appellant Versus Radhabai alleged w/o. Murlidhar Bhoite and .. Respondents others. Shri S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 08.07.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Shri S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant. None present for the respondents. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree of partition and separate possession passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Paranda, in Regular Civil Suit No. 73 of 1990 decided on 05.04.1993, which judgment and decree is further confirmed in appeal by the District Judge-2, Osmanabad, while deciding Regular Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1994 on 03.09.2009. ( 2 ) 3. Briefly stated, it is case of respondent Radhabai that she is widow of brother of present appellant and as such she is having one half share in the suit property. She wanted partition and separate possession of one half share. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are purchasers of the property pending the appeal. 4. Present appellant by his written statement denied relationship and denied that present respondent No.1 – Radhabai was widow of his brother Murlidhar. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently held that the original plaintiff/respondent No.1 Radhabai is widow of Murlidhar, who was brother of the appellant. The judgment of the First Appellate Court clearly shows that besides word of respondent No.1, she has also examined P.W.2-Tukaram and P.W.3-Laxman at Exh.34 and 35, respectively, regarding relationship and their evidence has not been shaken in the cross-examination. On the other hand there is word of D.W.1- Maruti, who is appellant. In para 9 of the Appellate Court’s judgment it is said that D.W.1-Maruti gave evasive replies in his cross-examination. At one stage while answering in the ( 3 ) cross-examination he stated that he was not understanding whether his brother Murlidhar was married or not. He also stated that he did not remember whether his brother died in the year 1965 or not. So, there was oral evidence led by both sides. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have held that the version of respondent No.1 is trustworthy and she has proved case. 5. There is no perversity in the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. In the circumstances, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JUL10/sa144.10