1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.956 OF 2009 Yograj @ Yuvraj Vasudeo Patil, age: 45 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Vadhoda, Tahsil Chopda, District Jalgaon. Appellant Versus 1 Dhananjay @ Shubham Yograj Patil, age: 14 years, Occ: Education, minor, through Guardian Sangeeta Yuvraj @ Yograj Patil, age: 35 years, Occ: Household; 2 Mrs.Sangeeta Yuvraj @ Yograj Patil, age: 35 years, Occ: Household; Both R/o C/o Pundalik Namdeo Chaudhari, at Post Avhane Tahsil, Dist.Jalgaon. Respondents Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate holding for Mr.Vinod Patil, advocate for the appellant. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 14 th January, 2010. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by original defendant raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by Courts below. 2 Wife and son, who are residing separately from defendant- husband, have presented suit claiming partition and separate possession of 2 ancestral properties in the hands of defendant. The factum of marriage of defendant with plaintiff no.2; and plaintiff no.1, being issue born out of the wedlock, is not denied by the defendant. It is also not denied that plaintiffs are residing separately from defendant-husband. Their entitlement to the ancestral property, therefore, cannot be doubted. Defence raised by defendant, that wife is not entitled to seek partition and separate possession during life time of husband, has been rightly turned down by the Courts below. 3 On perusal of the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, I am convinced that reasonable view of the matter has been taken by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 4 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeal, Civil Application No.13644 of 2009 does not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa95609