* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 227 OF 2007 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1755 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 227 OF 2007 WI T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 172 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 227 OF 2007 Ramchandra @ Rama Mahadev Gad .....Appellant (Orig.Plff) V/s. 1. Manohar Kashinath Sawant ....Respondent (Orig.Defd) ========= Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar a/w.Mr.Datta Pawar, i/by.M/s.Khandeparkar and Associates, adv. for appellant. Mr.D.S.Sakhalkar, adv.for respondent. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 15TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 20th April, 2005 passed by the District Court, Sindhudurg in Regular Civil Appeal No.80 of 2004 by which the District Court confirmed the judgment and decree of dismissal of * 2 * the suit by the trial court. 2. The appellant and one Kamlabai are the owners of the property at Survey No. 102 Hissa No.9 and Survey No.103 Hissa No.8 Village-Tendoli. Kamlabai had sold her undivided 50% share in the property on 3rd June, 1990 to the respondent. She died on 11th December, 1998. Thereafter the appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 17 of 2000 for a declaration that the registered sale deed executed by Kamlabai in favour of the respondent is null and void and not binding upon him. It was contended by the appellant that Kamlabai did not have legal authority to sell the suit land. The plaint however does not specify the legal impediment for Kamlabai for selling her share in the suit property. 3. Mr.Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Kamlabai could not have sold her share in the suit property because her share in the property was yet to be defined by partition of the suit property. There is no provision of law to prevent sale of undivided share in the joint property. The only drawback such purchaser would have, it is to demand his share by filing proceedings for partition. Both the courts below have held that Kamlabai had 50% share in the suit property and also had a right to sell her undivided share therein. This concurrent findings of the courts below is based on the material on record and is a reasonable and probable conclusion. It is also seen that for the sale, Kamlabai had obtained the permission under Section 43(1) read with Section 63(a) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act. The permission was granted to her on 30th December, 1997. 4. The concurrent findings of facts of both the courts below are reasonable and probable view based on the evidence led by the parties. There is no substantial * 3 * question of law arising in the matter. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. 5. With the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No.1755 of 2006 and Civil Application No.172 of 2008 also do not survive. The same are accordingly disposed off. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]