:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.24 OF 1993 Rangnath Umaji Dhokne. ..Appellant. Vs. Shivaji Uamji Dhoken through his L.Rs. ..Respondents. Mr.S.M. Mhamane for the Appellant. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J. DATE : 24th April,2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This is a second appeal filed by the original defendant who is the real brother of the respondent-original plaintiff. 2. The facts indicates that the suit property which was the house was purchased in the name of the original plaintiff by obtaining a bank loan. The said bank loan was repaid through the salary of the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had allowed the original defendant to reside in the house as gratuitous basis, however, since the defendant did not vacate the suit premises the suit was filed for possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the appeallate court dismissed the defendant’s appeal. :2: 3. The present second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law as formulated in Grounds 3 and 4 of the appeal memo. The said questions of law are as follows: 3) It should have been held that the suit property is a joint family property belonging to the joint family or a property acquired by the plaintiff and defendant from the Joint family funds. 4) The Courts below failed to appreciate the the fact that when the plot was purchased, the plaintiff and the Defendant were residing together as members of the joint family and the defendant being a elder brother in the family and therefore, he was spending for the domestic expenses of the joint family, he has spent Rs.3000/- by way of security deposit for the plaintiff and in the circumstances he has spent for the price to purchase a plot beneath the suit property. 4. On perusal of the record, I find that the plaintiff’s evidence clearly shows that the plot bearing CTS No.753A was purchased by the plaintiff in :3: his name and the structure was made thereon by obtaining a loan from his employer bank.The plaintiff has shifted to his residence. The defendant was staying in rented premises and he had to vacate the same as the same was in dilapidated condition. The plaintiff on compassionate ground allowed the defendant to reside with him. In this background, in my view, merely because the defendant was contributing the expenses of the house or may have given Rs.3000/- as security deposit, itself would not show that the suit property was joint family property. The questions of law as framed therefore, would not arise and therefore, second appeal stands dismissed. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)