1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 498 OF 2007 Dagdu Ramchandra Chothe .. APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Dattu Ramchandra Chothe & another .. RESPONDENTS Shri R.K. Temkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 22 nd September 2009 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit claiming declaration, partition and possession of the suit land to the extent of share allotable to him. According to plaintiff, defendant nos. 1 and 2 are his real brothers. Their mother Rakhmabai had gifted the property by executing will-deed in favour of defendants on 24-9-1992. However, according to him, the property is ancestral one and deceased Rakhmabai had no entitlement to dispose of whole of the 2 property by way of executing gift deed in favour of defendants. According to plaintiff, property was purchased by deceased Rakhmabai after alienating ancestral property situate at village Sade. Plaintiff as such is entitled to have share in the ancestral property. 3 Defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement. According to defendants, property at the hands of deceased Rakhmabai was her self- acquired property and was not ancestral one as claimed by plaintiff. According to him, his mother was residing with him . He had taken utmost care of their mother during her last days and as such she executed gift-deed in his favour. Defendant no. 2 appears to have supported the claim. However, he did not enter the witness box in order to lead oral evidence. 4 Trial court after recording evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to establish his contention to the effect that the suit property is ancestral one. Trial court as such dismissed the suit. Appeal presented by plaintiff being Regular Civil Appeal no. 259/1999 was also dismissed by the 4 th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar on 28-6-2002. 3 5 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Although plaintiff has contended that there was ancestral property belonging to the family situate at village Sade, however no evidence has been placed on record in respect of existence of ancestral property at said village or alienation thereof by deceased Rakhmabai. The courts below were justified in rejecting the contentions raised by plaintiff to the effect that the property in the hands of deceased Rakhmabai was ancestral property. Defendant, however, has led evidence to demonstrate that the property belongs to Rakhmabai and she has executed valid gift deed in favour of the defendants. On perusal of the reasons recorded by the courts below, I do not find any error or infirmity. Contentions raised by the appellant are essentially matters relating to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/ds498.07.odt