( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 939 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5750 OF 2005 Bhau Kisan Bale and ors. .. Appellants Versus Kaushalyabai w/o. Anandrao Pund & ors. .. Respondents Shri S.D. Hiwarekar, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 25.06.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.D. Hiwarekar for the appellants. The appellants are original defendant Nos. 2 to 5. They are aggrieved by the decree of partition and separate possession passed in favour of original plaintiffs, declaring their share as 1/8th by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti, in Regular Civil Suit No.30 of 1990 decided on 02.08.1995, which judgment and decree was further confirmed in appeal by II Additional District Judge, Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 57 of 1999, decided on 30.08.2003. ( 2 ) 2. It is no more disputed that Shripati Bale was the common ancestor and he owned suit property at Sr. No. 1 to 19. He had four sons Namdeo, Bhanudas, Tukaram & Kisan. Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant Nos. 7 to 10 were eight daughters of Tukaram. Defendant Nos. 11 and 13 were sons of Namdeo. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 were sons of Kisan. The plaintiffs who were daughters of Tukaram, filed suit for partition and separate possession. The main defence is that they have relinquished their share in the suit properties towards maintenance prior to marriage and for expenses made in the marriage. Necessary discussion is made by the Trial Court in para 15 to 21. In the first place it should be noted that maintaining females who are members of the joint family so also performing marriages of family members of the joint family are the duties of the joint family and it is not something which is an obligation by the joint family which in itself can be considered as ground for relinquishment. 3. In order to prove relinquishment, there is only evidence of D.W.1 Bhausaheb and one Bhanudas. They said that plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 7 and 8 had relinquished their shares in the lands and the lands were cultivated by ( 3 ) defendant Nos. 1 to 6. It has also come in evidence that shares of Tukaram were divided by 1 to 6 amongst themselves and they were cultivating the land. Non-cultivating the land by the plaintiffs and other defendants would not be sufficient to infer that they had relinquished their share. In-fact, in para 17 it is mentioned that D.W.1 Bhau has admitted that the plaintiffs were cultivating their share in the suit field till 1992. It is mentioned in para 17 that D.W.1 and D.W.2 deposed for plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 7 to 10 never cultivated the suit field, but then in cross- examination it is admitted that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 10 have 1/4th share of Housabai recorded in 7/12 extract. It is also admitted that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 were coming to Balewadi till 2-4 years before deposition and thereafter they have never come to cultivate the land. In para 18 it is further stated by the Trial Court that P.W.1 Vishnu has stated that after death of Housabai plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 7 to 10 were jointly cultivating the land for about five years and when they demanded partition, the defendants refused. Besides bare interested words of defendants there is no other evidence which can be said to be independent and reliable evidence to show relinquishment. ( 4 ) The learned advocate has cited case of Mt. Akhaj and ors. V/s. Arjun Koeri and anr., AIR (39) 1952 Patna 67, in which it is laid down that the relinquishment/surrender does not require any writing. There is no dispute regarding said proposition, particularly when relinquishment is by member of joint family, coparcener or co-owner of the property. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court did not find evidence regarding relinquishment trustworthy. On going through the evidence it does not appear that another view can be there. Since the view taken by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is concurrent view based on evidence and is reasonable view, this appeal cannot be admitted, as no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. 4. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, Civil Application No.5750 of 2005 does not survive. The Civil Application stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa939.05