: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.873 OF 2007 Vaijanta Vasant Patil ... Appellant V/s. Vasant Pandurang Patil & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Pratap Patil for Appellant Mr.S.G. Deshmukh for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: MARCH 23, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal has been preferred by plaintiff No.1 contending that the appellate Court has erred in confirming the decree only with respect to plaintiff No.2 2. Plaintiff No.1 claims to be the wife of the defendant and plaintiff No.2 their daughter. The trial Court has decreed the suit for maintainance for both the plaintiffs. The trial Court accepted the claim of plaintiff No.1 that she was married to the defendant and that plaintiff No.2 was their daughter. The trial Court has also found that the plaintiffs were in possession of the northern side of three khans portion of Gram Panchayat house No.698 and, therefore, directed that the defendant should not disturb their possession. : 2 : 3. The appellate Court has decreed the suit partly and directed the defendant to pay maintainance to plaintiff No.2 as it has confirmed the finding of the trial Court that she is the daughter of the defendant. However, the appellate Court has held that the marriage between plaintiff No.1 and the defendant was subsequent to his marriage with one Anusuyabai and therefore has not confirmed the decree with regard to the maintainance and possession qua plaintiff No.1. 4. In my opinion, no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and, therefore, it is dismissed. However, the defendant No.1, i.e. the respondent herein, shall not evict plaintiff No.1, i.e. the appellant herein, from the suit premises without following the due process of law.