1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.266/2011 Pandurang s/o Domaji Gajbhiye and others ...Versus... Geeta w/o Jaipal Meshram and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. [Shri S.G. Karmarkar, Adv. for appellants] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 10.08.2011. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. He argued that the properties purchased in the name of appellant no.1 were self acquired properties inasmuch as the same were purchased by the brother of the appellant in his name during his minority. The properties were not inherited from the father of the appellant and therefore, the same being self acquired properties could not be the subject matter of partition in a suit filed by the respondents. He further argued that during life time of father, appellant no.1 and daughters could not have claimed any partition by filing the suit in question and therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable. I have gone through the judgments and orders made by the Courts below. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts on the above questions, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants. 2 To the first question, it is seen that appellant no.1 was admittedly a minor when the sale-deeds were made in his favour. In other words, appellant no.1 did not have any income to purchase the suit properties. It is, therefore, not possible to believe and as held rightly by the Courts below concurrently that the properties were not self acquired properties of the appellant no.1. The submission that they were purchased by the brother of appellant no.1 in his name cannot be accepted, since the properties stood in the name of appellant no.1. In that view of the matter, finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that the properties were ancestral properties cannot be faltered. In so far as second question raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is concerned, it is seen that Section 6 of the Hindu Laws was amended by the Parliament which has come into effect w.e.f. 9.9.2005 by which the daughters have been given right in the property by birth. That being so, the Courts below have rightly considered that the suit filed at the instance of the daughters during life time of their father was maintainable. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw