1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.93 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 29.03.2011. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the property left by Rafiq i.e. brother of the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation and held that if at all the plaintiff was entitled to some share, he was entitled to share of 2 acres and 14 gunthas of the agricultural land. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit, filed the First Appeal before the District Court. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said 2 judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the Courts below committed an error in relying on Article 113 of the Limitation Act for construing the period of limitation. In fact, the suit would be governed by Article 110 of the Limitation Act and the suit would be well within the prescribed period of limitation. It was further contended by Mr.Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel that even the shares were improperly calculated, inasmuch as only 2 acres and 14 gunthas were considered to be the share for which the plaintiff would have been entitled to, considering the status of plaintiff as a residuary. The learned counsel contended that under the Mohammedan Law, the male would get twice that of a female. Applying the said analogy, the plaintiff should have been given 4 acres 28 gunthas of the land. It was further submitted that the lower appellate Court has failed in its duty by not independently appreciating the shares of the parties and observing that the trial Court has rightly 3 calculated the shares. The said approach is against the dictum of the Apex Court in a case of "Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by Lrs." reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 965. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. The appellate Court while concurring with the findings of the trial Court is not required to give detail independent reasoning. The Apex Court in a case of "Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by Lrs." referred supra has observed that when the appellate Court is reversing the finding of fact, in that event the appellate Court shall come within the close quarters of the reasoning given by the trial Court but the said analogy does not apply when the appellate Court is confirming the finding of the trial Court. 4. The suit under the Mohammedan Law would only be for administration of estate and the same would be governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Article 110 of the Limitation Act 4 is applicable in a suit to enforce a right to a share in a joint family property. There is no concept of joint family under the Mohammedan Law. In light of the same, the Courts below have rightly applied the provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Rafiq died in the year 1983. The suit had been filed in the year 2000. It has also been observed that the property was exclusively mutated and held by the defendants to the exclusion of the plaintiff since after the death of Rafiq. The share was also correctly calculated by the Courts below as the plaintiff would come in the category of a residuary and he would get a right to inherit 10/72 share in it. 5. Taking into account the above conspectus, no error is committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgment. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.29.03.2011. 5 asp/office/sa93.11