1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 277 OF 2009 Anusayabai w/o Ranaji Mate & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Dagadabai w/o Renaji Mate & others .. RESPONDENTS Smt. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellants. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 31 st August, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original defendants raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Respondent nos. 1 and 2 / original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit no. 31/2000 claiming decree of partition and separate possession in respect of immovable property left by husband of plaintiff no. 1. Defendant no. 1 Anusayabai as well as plaintiff no. 1 Dagadabai are the wives of deceased Renaji Mate. Plaintiff no. 2 is the son of Renaji born out of wedlock with 2 Dagadabai. Plaintiffs claim that there was valid marriage between plaintiff no. 1 and deceased Renaji and on his demise they are legally entitled to have share in the ancestral property left by him. Claim raised by the plaintiffs was resisted by defendants by filing written statement. According to them, plaintiff no. 1 cannot be said to be legally wedded wife of deceased Renaji. It is also contended that the suit presented by plaintiffs is beyond prescribed period of limitation. It is stated that the suit ought to have been presented within 12 years after their ouster from the joint possession in view of provisions of Article 110 of the Limitation Act. 3 Trial court after considering the rival contentions came to the conclusion that the marriage of plaintiff no. 1 with deceased Renaji was solemnised prior to enforcement of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and as such, the validity of the marital ties between plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 1 cannot be questioned by the defendants. Trial court also found that the case put up by defendants in respect of ouster from possession also cannot be substantiated on the basis of evidence placed on record. Trial court thus granted decree in favour of the plaintiff holding them entitled to have share in the ancestral property. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was subjected to challenge at the instance of defendant no. 1 in Regular 3 Civil Appeal no. 137/2002 which came to be heard and disposed of by 3 rd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed who was pleased to dismiss the same by judgment and decree dt. 15-1-2005. 4 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that marriage of plaintiff no. 1 with deceased Renaji was legal. It has also been held by the courts below that the suit presented by plaintiffs is within prescribed period of limitation. The theory of ouster as contended by defendants has not been substantiated by them. In my opinion, the view adopted by the courts below is reasonable and proper. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stand dismissed summarily. 5 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa277.09.odt