gst 1 sa264.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SECOND APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2010. Raju Santosh Gaikwad & Anr. .... ..... ..... Appellants. V/s Ratnabai w/o Bhaskar Magar & Ors. ..... .... Respondents. Mr.M.M>Sathaye, Adv. For the appellants. Mr.Milind Deshmukh, Adv. For respondent No.1. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 1st September, 2010. PC: By way of present second appeal the appellants are challenging the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned Civil Judge, J.D., Nandgaon dated 13.12.2000 thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 and the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-I, Malegaon dated 25.3.2009 thereby dismissing the appeal. 2. The plaintiff Ratnabai who claims to be the daughter of Ramrao through his second wife Anjanabai had filed a suit for partition. The defendants 1 to 4 are the sons of deceased Ramrao from the first wife Padmabai. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are sons of defendant No.3. It was claim of the plaintiff that the agricultural properties in Gat No.174, 197, 143 and 168 were partitioned by the deceased-father between him and his sons and that the agricultural land being S.No.168 had come to the share of the deceased Ramrao. 3. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence decreed the suit and granted 1/5th share only in gat No.168. The said order is confirmed by the Appellate Court. Being aggrieved thereby the present appeal has been filed. 4. Mr.Sathaye, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that assuming that the respondent-plaintiff had a share in the ancestral property the gst 2 sa264.10.sxw learned trial Court ought to have taken into consideration that first the property has to be divided into five shares i.e. deceased Ramrao and four sons and the only entitlement of the plaintiff would be 1/5th share in the share of Ramrao. He further submits that the learned appellate court has wrongly framed the issue regarding possession when it had no relevance at all. 5. Mr.Milind Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that in view of the concurrent findings of fact no interference is warranted in the present appeal. 6. From the perusal of the concurrent orders it would reveal that though the plaintiff had claimed share in the entire agricultural property the trial court had found that the properties were already partitioned between the four sons of Ramrao and Ramrao himself in the year 1968 and in that partition agricultural land being S.No.168 had fallen to the sahre of Ramrao. The share which has been granted has been granted only in the land which had come to the share of deceased Ramrao and that also only to the extent of 1/5th share. This finding of fact has been affirmed by the learned appellate court. In that view of the matter I do not find any interference is warranted. No substantive question of law arises. Hence second appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of second appeal civil application does not survive and the same also stands disposed of.