(1) SA. 906.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 906 OF 2008 1] Dwarkadas S/o Shrikishan Bhakkad Age : 70 yrs., Occu.: Business and Agri. R/o Balaji Galli, Sadar Bazar, Jalna 2] Taramati w/o Rambilas Mundada, Age : 65 yrs., Occu.: Household, R/o : Dhule, Tq. and Dist. Dhule 3] Kamlabai w/o Ramnath Mantri died LRs. a] Vijaykumar s/o Ramnath Mantri Age : 55 years, Occu.: Agril. and Business, R/o Badnapur, Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna b] Suresh s/o Ramnath Mantri, Age : 50 years, Occu.: Agril. and Business, R/o Badnapur, Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna c] Rajendra S/o Ramnath Mantri, Age : 48 years, Occu.: Agri. and Business, R/o Badnapur, Tq. Badnapur Dist. Jalna d] Sanjay s/o Ramnath Mantri, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Agril. and Business, R/o Badnapur, Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna e] Sow. Meena w/o Dr. Gopal Rathi, Age : 43 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Dhanora, Tq. Chopada, Dist. Jalgaon (2) SA. 906.2008 f] Sow. Kiran Rajesh Bajaj, Age : 35 years, Occu.: Household, R/o : At Post Asra, Tq. Bhatjuli, Dist. Amravati g] Sow. Kalpana w/o Jugalkishor Loya, Age : 32 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Lohiya Colony, Paithan, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad .. Appellants VERSUS 1] Sitaram S/o Bansilal Bhakkad, Age : 60 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o : Balaji Galli Swami Dayanand Road, Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna 2] Kum. Kantabai d/o Bansilal Bhakkad, Age : 57 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Balaji Galli, Swami Dayanand Road, Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna 3] Kum. Kanchan d/o Bansilal Bhakkad, Age : 53 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Balaji Galli, Swami Dayanand Road, Jalna, Dist. Jalna .. Respondents Mr. Ambar S. Barlota, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.K. Barlota, Advocate for the appellants Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 to 3 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The (3) SA. 906.2008 appellants filed Suit for partition, contending that the Suit properties belonged to the joint family of the appellants and the respondents. The appellants are children of one Shrikishan and the respondents are children of Bansilal, the brother of Shrikishan. Bansilal and Shrikishan were children of one Surajmal. It is the case of the appellants that two agricultural lands were joint family properties acquired by their grand-father Surajmal but the evidence that has come on record showed clearly that the lands, since beginning stood in the name of the respondents and their father Bansilal. The appellants, thus failed to show that their father Shrikishan or their grand-father Surajmal had any concern with the agricultural lands. . The Courts below thus rejected their claim that the agricultural lands belonged to Surajmal and were joint family properties. 2] Having perused the judgments of the Courts below, I find that the appreciation of the evidence is quite proper and there is no perversity in the same. No substantial question of law arose in this appeal. The second appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp