1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.153 OF 2010 Shankar Bhimraoji Gawande & one another ..vs.. Sudhakar Bhimraoji Gawande - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.N.Badhe, advocate for the appellants CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : May 03, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his share in the agricultural land situated at village Mogra. The plaintiff and the defendant no.1 & 2 are real brothers. The defendant no.3 was the father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 & 2. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendants were the joint owners of the ancestral agricultural properties and the plaintiff was restrained by the defendant no.1 and 2 in the year 1996 on the ground that the suit property was already partitioned in the year 1989. The plaintiff pleaded that he had no knowledge about the partition deed dated 26.12.1989 and it was a sham and bogus document. The plaintiff pleaded that he had taken care of his maternal grandfather and his maternal grandfather had executed a gift in regard to the agricultural property at village Chikhli on 9.11.1981. The defendants no.1, 2 & 3 resisted the claim of the plaintiff. They denied that the plaintiff was not aware of the partition deed dated 26.11.1989. It was pleaded that the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 had executed a will dated 16.5.1970 making a bequest of the property at Chikhli in favour of Shevantabai the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant no1. & 2. It was pleaded by the defendants that in the partition of the year 1989 the plaintiff received the property at Chikhli and the suit 2 property fell to the share of defendant no.1,2 & 3. The Defendants therefore, sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the trial and the first appellate court on an appreciation of evidence on record held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving that the suit property at village Mogra was the joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants. It was held by both the courts that the plaintiff became the sole owner of the property at Chikhli in view of the gift deed executed by his maternal grandfather in his favour in 1981. The courts then held that the defendants failed to prove that there was a partition between plaintiff and defendants on 26.11.1989. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession was decreed. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the judgments along with the oral evidence of the parties, it appears that the findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. This second appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE smp