1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.356/2010 ANIL WAKDE & ORS ..VS.. KAWADU RAMTEKE & ORS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 6 /10 / 2010 Heard Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of the suit properties bearing plot no.66 and 67. Plaintiffs also sought a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from constructing over the suit plot no.66 and 67. According to the plaintiffs one Bhola Ramteke died issue less in 1940 and hence after his death his two brothers namely Warlu and Ganpati became the owners and possessors of the suit plot no.66 and 67. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was their joint ancestral property. The defendants filed the written statement and denied that plot no.67 was belonging to the Joint Hindu Property. the defendants admitted that plot no.66 was however, the joint Hindu Family Property and the plaintiffs were entitled to seek partition and separate possession of their share in the plot no.66 only. The defendants did not deny the geneological tree. They however, pleaded that the plot no.67 was purchased by their father – Ganpati on 19.9.1931 by a sale deed. According 2 ot the defendants Ganpati was the absolute owner of plot no.67 and hence, the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek a partition of plot no.67. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial court and the first appellate court on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that both the plots numbers 66 and 67 belonged to the Joint Hindu Family Property. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were in possession of the ancestral property, consisting of three houses and defendant no.1 to 6 had failed to prove that their father Ganpati had purchased plot no.67 from his own income. The courts, therefore, granted a decree for partition and possession in favour of the plaintiff. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The courts rightly held that the defendants had failed to prove that Ganpati had purchased the suit plots from his own earnings though he was residing in a Hindu Joint Family. Since no substantial question is law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.