(1) SA. 366.2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2005 Anusayabai Nana Penta .. Appellant VERSUS Sayaji Ganpat Penta (dead) by LRs. and others .. Respondents Mr. L.B. Pallod, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent nos. 1(A) to 1(C), 1E and 1F S.A. stands dismissed against Respondent no.1D and 2 as per Courts order dated 18.3.2009 Mrs. S.R. Kadu, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Lomte, Advocate for the respondent no.3 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 18TH JANUARY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The appellant is present before the Court. Last time I had requested Shri Pallod the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, to keep the appellant present before the Court and she is present accordingly. In presence of Shri Pallod, I asked the appellant as to whether she would like to continue Shri Pallod, as her Advocate and she replied in the affirmative and therefore, I heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties in presence of the appellant. (2) SA. 366.2005 2] The Second Appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the Courts below. One Shivaji happened to be the cousin of the husband of the appellant no.1. The only controversy between the parties since beginning was whether Shivaji survived by his sister Ratnabai? The appellant/plaintiff tried to contend that Shivaji did not have any legal heir. She did not elaborate this further. She did not (probably purposely) mention in the plaint and in the depositions that Shivaji who was son of Narayanswami had three sisters namely Indubai, Chandubai and Ratanbai. She did not even mention that Shivaji's two sisters namely Indubai and Chandubai were dead long before the filing of the suit. When the respondents appeared before the Court they mentioned in the written statement that Shivaji had three sisters and Ratanbai, the one who was alive at the time of the filing of the suit, was his only legal heir. The case of the respondents/defendants was accepted by not only the trial Court but also by the appellate Court. The question of fact thus, was decided against the appellant. 3] Having gone through the depositions with the help of the learned counsel for the parties, I find no error in the findings of the Courts below. There is no other point much less a substantial question (3) SA. 366.2005 of law exists in controversy between the parties. In view of this, the appeal would fail. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp