1 sa447.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.447 OF 2011 Sau. Sarala Ramesh Jadhav, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agri.& Household, R/o. Rashin, Tq. Karjat, District Ahmednagar. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Sau. Ratnamala Krishna Jadhav, Age: 52 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Rashin, Now at Khed, Tq. Karjat, Dist.Ahmednagar and another. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. H.D. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. C.P. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 17TH DECEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Present second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 25-01-2011 in R.C.A. Nos. 255 OF 2002 and 278 of 2 sa447.11 2002 passed by the District Judge-5, Ahmednagar. The suit filed by the plaintiff was partly allowed. Challenging the said decree, the appellant herein filed R.C.A. No.255 of 2002 and in the said appeal, the lower appellate Court framed as many as five points for determination/consideration. Point No.1 whether the suit property is joint family property of plaintiff and defendant No.1, is answered as "partly yes". So far Gat No. 457, tractor, trolley and flour mill is concerned, it is held that, that is the self acquired property of the defendants. 3. The Counsel for the appellant would submit that, the land Gat No. 456 and the suit House No. 71 came to the share of the appellant in the partition as back as in the year 1974. Another land Gat No. 711 which was given in the partition to the defendants was sold for her marriage, therefore, once there was partition in the year 1974 and by way of partition, land Gat 3 sa447.11 NO. 456 and suit House No. 71 is allotted to the present appellant, in that case the appeal deserves to be allowed. At the cost of repetition, the Counsel for the appellant would submit that, consideration amount which was received by selling land Gat No. 711 was spent on the marriage of the respondent and therefore, there is no any share of respondent in the remaining property since it is allotted in favour of the appellant in the partition. Therefore, according to the Counsel for the appellant, second appeal deserves consideration. The Counsel also invited my attention to the grounds taken in the memorandum of second appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 placed reliance upon the reasons recorded by the lower appellate Court and submitted that, the second appeal is devoid of any merits and same may be dismissed. 5. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. I have carefully perused the 4 sa447.11 grounds taken in the second appeal and also annexures thereto. 6. Both the Courts below upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record rejected the contention of the appellant that, there was oral partition in the year 1974. The Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that, no any witness to the said partition has been examined on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, if the said partition is not proved and when it is not in dispute that, the land Gat No. 456 and suit House No. 71 is property of the parents of the appellant and respondents, in that case respondent No.1 will be entitled for the share in the said property. Therefore, on careful perusal of the grounds taken in the second appeal, none of the ground can be considered as a substantial question of law so as to entertain this second appeal. Therefore, second appeal is devoid of any merits, same stands dismissed summarily. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] 5 sa447.11 sut/DEC11