1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 375/2011 Kasturabai w/o Naval Patil and others ... Appellants. VERSUS Bhavrao s/o Zavaru Patil ... Respondents ..... Shri R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for appellants. Shri Girish Rane, Advocate for respondent sole. ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 7th December, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard ld. counsel appearing for the appellants and ld. counsel appearing for respondent. Ld. counsel appearing for the appellants taken me through the grounds in the appeal and relying upon ground no.2, 3 and 4 would submit that second appeal deserves consideration. He would further submit that the appellants herein were cultivating the lands of Mathurabai who died on 06/08/2000. Out of love and affection, said Mathurabai had orally given lands and house of her share to the appellants. Therefore, according to the counsel for the appellants, original plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the property of Mathurabai. Ld. counsel further submits that though oral evidence was led and witnesses were examined, both the courts below have failed to appreciate said evidence and decreed the suit thereby granting ½ 2 share in the property of Mathurabai to the plaintiff. In fact, entire property of Mathurabai was given to the present appellants since out of love and affection. Therefore, according to counsel appearing for appellants, second appeal deserves to be allowed. On the other hand, ld. counsel appearing for the original plaintiff, respondent herein has produced across the Bar, genealogy of Zavaru which is reproduced as follows. Zavaru ________________________|_______________________ | | | Naval (Died) Zulal (Died) Bhavrao(Plff) | | | | | =Kasturabai | =Mathurabai | D1 (Died on 06.08.2000) | _ |_________________________ | | | | Prakash Rajkorbai Ramabai Chandkorbai D2 D3 D4 D5 2. This aforesaid genealogy of Zavaru is not disputed by the counsel for appellants. The ld. counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that Mathurabai died issue less. Therefore, the suit was filed for partition of property and taking into consideration the material brought on record, the trial court directed that the plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in the property of Mathurabai and the appellants are also entitled for ½ share. Therefore, according to the counsel appearing for the respondent herein, second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court. 3. It is further submitted that the perusal of genealogy of Zavaru, he had three sons Naval, Zulal and Bhavrao. Present appellants are legal representatives of Naval. Original plaintiff / respondent herein is legal representative of Bhavrao. It is not 3 disputed that Mathurabai died issue less. Therefore, as per entitlement, legal representatives of Naval and Bhaurao are required to be given 50% share each in the property of Mathurabai. 4. The submissions of the ld. counsel appearing for the appellants that out of love and affection Mathurabai has given entire property of her share to the appellants, was not supported by any documentary evidence. Indeed, oral evidence was led. Both the courts in absence of any documentary evidence have held that the legal representatives of Naval and Bhavrao are entitled for 50% share each. There are concurrent finding of facts after appreciation of evidence by the courts below. Nothing in the nature of documentary evidence was placed on record to show that Mathurabai out of love and affection has given landed property to the appellant. On careful perusal of grounds taken in the second appeal and in particular grounds no.2, 3 and 4, I do not find any ground worth to consider this second appeal. Therefore, in view of the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order. Second appeal is devoid of any merit. The appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, civil application no. 9703/2011 stands rejected. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ts k/2011/Dec7/sa375.11