1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2009 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1066 OF 2009 Shahaji Digambar Suryawanshi and others ....Appellants. Versus Vishwanath Nana Suryawanshi and others ....Respondents. Shri. Mukul Kulkarni I/b. Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the appellants/applicants. Shri.J.R.Shah h/f. Shri. M.Y. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent 2. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 8TH JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri. Mukul Kulkarni instructed by Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the appellants and Shri.J.R.Shah holding for Shri. M.Y. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent 2. 2. This is an appeal by the original defendants, being aggrieved by the decree of partition and separate possession passed by the trial court which has been confirmed by the District Court. It was the case of the 2 defendants/ appellants that two landed properties at Sr. No. 1-a in the plaint namely Survey No. 110 and Survey No. 87 were self-acquired properties of Digambar from whom the appellants/ defendants claim 1/3 share. 3. It is the case of the respondents/ plaintiffs that the properties were ancestral, purchased by Nana who was father of Digambar, the predecessor in title of the appellants, Vishwanath and Raghunath through whom respondent No. 1 and to 10 claim. 4. In order to prove that the said landed properties were ancestral properties, plaintiff Raghunath examined himself on oath. He also examined P.W. 3 Nivrutti Garsule. Plaintiff Raghunath stated on oath that their father was carpenter. Plaintiff Raghunath was teacher. The properties were purchased in the year 1954 and 1956 by them. Absolute no evidence is led by appellants/ defendants to prove that the properties were self -acquired properties of Digambar. There is only statement of Shahaji Digambar at Exh. 137. The evidence on record was discussed by the first appellant Court in para 7 and 8 and the trial Court in para 19 to 22. After going through reasoning given, in my opinion, it cannot be said to be perverse view. It is a reasonable view based on evidence on record. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Hence, second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. 3 5. In view of dismissal of second appeal, civil application No. 1066/2009 does not survive and disposed of. [ P.R. BORKAR ] Judge ssc/sa93.09