1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2009. Gangubai wd/o Vasanta Manwatkar & Ors. Vs. Jankibai wd/o Umrao Pantaone ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri V. A. Patil Adv for appellants. Shri A. D. Mohgaonkar Adv for respondent. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 20 th AUGUST, 2009. Heard. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court whereby he set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Original defendant No.1 has preferred this appeal. Plaintiff had instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of the 2 property which is said to be left behind by her deceased husband Umrao. She claims that she was legally wedded wife of Umrao while defendant No.2 Ratnamala was the second wife. She claims partition of her 1/3rd share. Trial Court holding that plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of Umrao and was not entitled to any share, plaintiff therefore preferred appeal before the District Judge. District Judge recorded the finding that plaintiff was the legally wedded wife and she was entitled to 1/3rd share. Defendants feel aggrieved by the said judgment and decree and preferred this second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that first appellate Court had fallen in error in holding that plaintiff was legally wedded wife of Umrao. He submits that there was no evidence and the appreciation of evidence available, and that was not sufficient to hold that she was legally wedded wife. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the judgment delivered by the first 3 appellate Court. The judgment goes to show that learned Judge has relied upon the admission given by the defendant in the notice reply sent by them to the plaintiff. In the said notice they had clearly admitted that plaintiff was legal wedded wife of Umrao. The lawyer who is examined as witness says that he drafted reply as instructed by the defendants. This admission has been rightly considered by the first appellate Court. That has become a finding of fact which cannot be disturbed by this Court at all and that has to be accepted since it is not shown that such a finding is perverse. This admission is given in a reply send by the defendants themselves and therefore must bind them. Evidence has been rightly appreciated by the Court. There is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk