1 S.A. 654/2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 654/2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 7th December, 2011. Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.M. Nagarkar h/f Mr. B.R. Kedar, Advocate for respondent No.1. 1. Heard Ld. counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent findings recorded by trial Court. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the marriage of plaintiff took place prior to 1994. The contention of the plaintiff that her marriage took place in 2002 was not supported by any evidence on record. Therefore, the Court could not have inferred that the marriage took place in the year 2002. Ld. counsel further submits that there is no partition between his real brother and himself. Therefore, no question of further partition of entire property between appellant and respondents arises. Ld. counsel also invited my attention to the grounds raised in appeal memo and 2 S.A. 654/2011 submitted that second appeal deserves consideration. 3. Ld. counsel appearing for respondent relying upon concurrent finding recorded by court below submits that second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Upon hearing Ld. counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the grounds taken in second appeal, non of grounds taken in second appeal, appeals to this Court to entertain this second appeal. The appellant herein is father of respondents No.1 and 3 and husband of respondent No.2. The relationship is not in dispute. The trial Court granted 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. However, the District Court varied the said decree and granted 1/4th share to the appellant and 1/4th each to the respective respondents. 5. From perusal of the grounds taken in second appeal, none of the grounds can be considered to be substantial question of law which really requires consideration in this second appeal. Second appeal does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law. Therefore, second appeal stands dismissed summarily. [S.S. SHINDE,J.] ts k/Dec.2011/7th/sa654.11