( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2003 Khairulla Khan s/o. Noor Khan .. Appellant Versus Toukeer Kharunum w/o.Sardar Khan & ors... Respondents Shri S.S. Choudhari with Shri J.R. Patil, Advocates for the appellant. Shri S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 10.06.2009 P.C. :- 1. This is an appeal preferred by original plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District Judge, Latur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.158 of 1995, decided on 03.07.2000, whereby the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedpur, on 01.07.1995. ( 2 ) 2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff is son of Noorkhan (respondent No.3 and original defendant No.3). Noorkhan had two wives. Rabiyabi, from whom plaintiff was born, died in 1958. After death of Rabiyabi, Noorkhan married Inayatbi. Plaintiff came with two versions. First he comes with a case that the suit property which was owned by Noorkhan was orally gifted to him by his father and secondly he also comes with a case that in partition between him and his father the property was allotted to him. 3. In 1959 the maternal grandfather of present plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.177 of 1959 for injunction and injunction was issued in favour of the plaintiff, who was then three years old, as against respondent No.3 Noorkhan. The Trial Court has heavily relied upon the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 177 of 1959 for holding that the plaintiff is owner. However, the District Court has held that the said decree was never acted upon and plaintiff was not owner of the property. In the first place the parties ( 3 ) are Mohammedan and there is no concept of joint family property and as such there cannot be partition between father and son in respect of property of the father. Secondly, it is also observed in para 12 of the First Appellate Court judgment that so far as Hiba (oral gift) is concerned, the plaintiff was three years old when the alleged oral gift was given and his evidence to that extent could not be believed as he could not have attained age of understanding. Moreover, admittedly, respondent No.3 has sold three acres land to one Namdeo on 14.03.1967 and present plaintiff is claiming ownership only in respect of remaining 8 acres land. Original Survey No.43B was subsequently renumbered as Block No.340 and it is measuring 3 H 62 R. 4. Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 1975 was filed by defendant No.1 against defendant No.3. Prior to that on 23.02.1972 a sale deed has been executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No.1. But according to plaintiff said sale deed is only nominal as defendant No.3 Noorkhan was selling the property and in order to prevent squandering of property, it was transferred in the name ( 4 ) of respondent No.1 (defendant No.1.), who was uncle’s wife of plaintiff. In Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 1975 respondent No.1 claimed herself to be owner of the property as against respondent No.3 Noorkhan. The matter came to be compromised on 12.03.1975. The plaintiff was not party to it. The First Appellate Court has held that the suit filed in 1992 for recovery of possession on title by the plaintiff was time barred. When the suit was filed in 1992, admittedly the plaintiff was thirty six years of age. He was aware of the sale-deed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.1. The First Appellate Court in para 28 of its judgment has observed that the suit ought to have been filed within three years after attaining majority, for setting aside sale-deed in the name of respondent No.1 by respondent No.3. It is also noted that after the sale-deed, name of respondent No.1 was mutated in the 7/12 extract. There was also compromise. In point No.4 the District Court also held that respondent No.1 was bonafide purchaser for value without notice. 5. Considering the reasons given by the First ( 5 ) Appellate Court and in the circumstances of the case in my opinion the view taken cannot be said to unreasonable. No substantial question of law arises. In this view of the matter, this appeal cannot be admitted and it is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa85.03