1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.1419 OF 2004. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.11.2010. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession. The plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of the suit land. At the time when the sale deed was executed, he was minor and the sale deed which is executed in favour of defendant is not binding on him. The trial Court partly decreed the suit to the extent of 37 Ares of the land. In appeal, the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and granted share to the extent of 1/3rd. The appellant has assailed the said judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of provisions of Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the transaction entered into by defendant No. 1 with other defendants was null, void abinitio inasmuch as no permission was sought from the District Court for the sale of the said property. The learned counsel also further contended that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the property. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, would be applicable only if the property is the absolute and exclusive property of the minor. The said provision does not apply if the minor has only a share in an ancestral or a joint family property. Both the Courts have held that the suit property is an ancestral property and the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the said property. 4. In light of the above, there is no substantial question of law involved. As such the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.25.11.2010. asp/office/sa1419.04