1 FARHAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 852 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4896 OF 2007 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. A.B. Kadethankar, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL J. DATED: 29th April, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard. The concurrent findings recorded against the defendant No. 3 are questioned in the second appeal. 2. The case put up by the plaintiff was, she has inherited the suit land from her father being the only heir. The revenue record illustrated that even since 1954, she having inherited it from her father. Her name as legal heir is incorporated and also subsequently followed in the 7/12 extract after 1960. A simple mutation entry No. 4451 in the name of defendant No. 5 by itself will not change the colour and complexion of the matter to the extent of rights which the plaintiff enjoyed. There is nothing to demonstrate that the property was of husband of the plaintiff, having any stake in it for her brother- in-law Madhav. The findings of both the Courts are in tune with the record. The so called partition or Sammati Patrak is 2 itself is not established. The witness of the defendant No. 3 has indeed stated, he did not witness any of such writing having taken place. The second appeal does not project any substantial question of law to be formulated. Dismissed. No costs. The record and proceedings be sent back. 3. In view of dismissal of appeal, Civil Application does not survive, dismissed. [ K.U. CHANDIWAL J.] ssc/sa852.06