(SA 163 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.163 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.406 OF 2011 Uddhav Mahadev Karande and Anr. ...Appellants Vs. Ramchandra Mahadeo Karande ...Respondent ----- Mr.A.M. Kulkarni for Appellants Mr.S.G. Karandikar for Respondent No.1 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 8th July, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants – Original Plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent- Original Defendant No.1 (for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as “the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1”). 2. Brief facts are that the suit was filed by the Plaintiffs seeking partition of the suit property. The Defendant No.1 in his written statement contended that the said property was owned by one Anjubai and that she had by a registered agreement cum Will, transferred the said property in favour of the Defendant No.1. The (SA 163 of 2011) case of the Plaintiffs is that in the said agreement, it was stated that the Defendant No.1 was a joint family manager and, therefore, it was contended that the property was transferred in favour of the entire joint family. 3. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have held that merely because a reference is made that the Defendant No.1 is a joint family member that would not mean that she had executed the deed in favour of the entire joint family. 4. This being a concurrent finding of fact, it will not be possible for this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 100 to interfere with the said finding recorded by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law is raised. Hence, Second Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)