1 55 sa 459.10.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.459 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1155 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.459 OF 2010 Shrikant Krishna Borkar ..Appellant. Vs. Sadanand Harishchandra Patil & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. S.M.Kazi for the appellant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 20/12/2010. PC: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2 This appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the courts below in a suit instituted by respondent no.1 for partition and separate possession of his share in the ancestral properties. Both the courts below after having considered the material/evidence on record have concurrently held that the properties, of which partition is sought by the plaintiff, are ancestral properties. The Courts below have also recorded a categoric finding that the suit properties are not self-acquired properties, as claimed by the appellant-defendant no.1, of the deceased Ramji and that he has become owner of the said properties after his demise. 2 55 sa 459.10.doc 3 Mr.Kazi, learned counsel for the appellant assail ed the judgments of the courts below solely on the ground that appellant is entitled for share in the suit propertird under section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. This contention was not raised at any point of time in this proceedings. Moreover, this submission is contrary to the appellant’s case that the suit properties are self acquired properties of the deceased Ramji. Considering that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, and that there is sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering that no substantial question of law is either raised or involved in the appeal, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. 4 Consequently, the civil application is also disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)