1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 270 /2009 1. KESHAO S/O RAMESHWAR JOSHI . R/O NEAR MANTRI INDUSTRIES, RANPISE NAGAR, AKOLA .. Petitioner/s VERSUS 1. SAU. MEENA W/O VINODKUMAR JOSHI AND OTHERS . R/O C/O MAHESH CHANDRA JOSHI, MULTAI, DIST BAITUL 2. SAU. PREMLATA W/O RUPESHKUMAR SHARMA R/O SARAFA,KHAMGAON 3. ARVIND S/O RAMESHWAR JOSHI R/O NEAR MANTRI INDUSTRIES, RANPISE NAGAR, AKOLA .. Respondent/s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.V. Sohoni, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 5, 2009. Heard Shri Sohoni, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant no.1. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs. They had filed a civil suit against the appellant and the respondent no.2 for partition, separate possession and for accounts. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are the sisters and the defendants are their real brothers. It was pleaded by the 2 plaintiffs that the suit property was purchased by their father Rameshwar Joshi by the sale-deed dated 07.07.1978. Their father expired in the year 1998. Since the plaintiffs and the defendants were the only legal heirs of Rameshwar, each of them was entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property. The plaintiffs, therefore, demanded the partition and separate possession of their share in the suit property. The appellant-defendant no.1 resisted the suit and denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to partition and separate possession. It was, however, admitted that Rameshwar had purchased the suit plot from his own earnings. It was pleaded that Rameshwar was doing Adat business and defendant no.1 Keshao was helping him in the said business. It was then pleaded that after the death of Rameshwar, the defendant no.2 was running that business and earning the profit. It was pleaded that the said property also ought to have been included in the suit property. The defendant no.1 then pleaded that he was the exclusive owner of the two shops constructed on the plot and that was his separate property. The defendant no.2 remained absent and the matter proceeded exparte against him, though he was duly served. 3 The trial Court framed the necessary issues and on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs succeeded in proving that they had 1/4th share in the suit property. The Court further held that the defendant no.1-appellant failed to prove that he was the exclusive owner of area of 750 Square Feet out of Survey No.7/3 and the shops standing thereon. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs were also entitled to the account of the profits of the business of flour-mill and the crushing machine. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. In an appeal filed by the appellant-defendant no.1, the first appellate Court maintained all the other findings recorded by the trial Court except the finding on the entitlement of the plaintiffs to seek the accounts from the defendant no.1. The first appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek the accounts from the defendant no.1. All the other issues were again answered against the defendant no.1 and the first appellate Court maintained the decree for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share of each of the plaintiffs in the suit property. 4 On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of both the judgments in detail, it is clear that both the Courts have recorded pure findings of facts on the issues involved in this case and none of the findings gave rise to a substantial question of law. Both the courts have held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that the property belonged to their father and the defendant no.1 had failed to prove that some of the properties were exclusively owned by the the defendant no.1. Since the findings do not give rise to a substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE