1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.727 OF 2007 Basveshwar Gurubasappa Patne Appellant vs. 1.Chandrakant Gurubasappa Patne & ors. Respondents Mr.M.R.Katilar for the appellant. Mr.G.S.Godbole for respondents 1, 5 and 6. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 24th April, 2008 P.C. The appellant is the original plaintiff. His Suit was partly decreed by the trial Court by its Order dated 24.01.1997. 2. Civil Appeal No.58/1997 filed by defendant no.7 is allowed. Civil Appeal No.64/1997 filed by defendant no.1 is allowed partly. In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed and/or modified as follows: " ORDER . Civil Appeal No.58/97 is allowed. . Civil Appeal No.64/97 is partly allowed. . The Judgment and Decree dated : 24/1/1997, passed in 2 Regular Civil Suit No.25/88 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of shares on partition in immovable agricultural landed properties, mentioned therein, are concerned, and so also with respect to enquiry into future mesne-profits. Instead, it is hereby directed the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 are entitled to 21/60th share, each in house property while the Defendants No.3 to 5 are entitled to share of 1/10th each. Shares of Defendants No.1, 3 to 5 be carved out on paying the required Court-fees by each of them. . The partition of the house property be effected by appointing a Court-Commissioner. . Parties to bear their own costs of the appeal. . Decree be drawn-up, accordingly." 3. The appellant has therefore filed present Second Appeal against the common order passed in both the aforesaid Civil Appeals. Therefore, challenge is made against the order allowing Civil Appeal No.58/1997 and against the modified order in Civil Appeal No.64/1997. There is no restriction whatsoever in so far as the challenge is concerned. 4. However, the findings so given by the Court need 3 no interference as based upon the material available on the record. It has been failed to prove that the suit land as described in the plaint are Hindu Joint family except the house property. In the result, it is held that the house property is Hindu Joint family property. 5. It is further observed that defendants 1, 2 and 5 proved that the land Gat No.240 is self-acquired property of defendant no.2 and Gat No.91/1 and 91/2(1) are self-acquired properties of defendant no.1. It is further held that the appellant-Sitaram-defendant no.7 is a bonafide purchaser of the land of Gat No.240/2 and the appellant-defendant no.1 became the owner of the land Gat No.240/2 on the basis of Will executed by Sangavva i.e. defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 has full power to dispose of the said property. In the result, the Appellate Court observed that the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.01.1997 passed in Suit No.25/1988 is proper, legal, correct and sustainable. All these findings as recorded is within the frame work of law and the record. There is no perversity in the order. There is no question of law involved in the matter. 6. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]