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 CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.393 OF 2006. APPEAL NO.393 OF 2006. APPEAL NO.393 OF 2006. Krishnaji Sambhaji Hajare ...Appellant Versus Shankar Sambhaji Hajare & Anr. ...Respondents Shri A.Y.Sakhare, Sr Advocate for the Appellant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 24th January, 2008. : 24th January, 2008. : 24th January, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard advocate appearing for the appellant. His submission is that the first respondent-original plaintiff has not discharged the burden of establishing that the suit property was a property held by joint family. He submitted that the property stands in the name of the appellant (first defendant) in the revenue records and therefore in view of failure of the original plaintiff to discharge the burden, a decree for injunction could not have been passed. 2. I have considered the submissions. It was the specific case of the appellant-first defendant that there was a partition of the joint family 35 years prior to the institution of the suit and the suit property has been acquired by him out of the income derived from the property allotted to his share in the said partition. ... 2 ... There is a finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record that the appellant failed to establish severance of status and at highest what is established by the appellant is a separate residence. Therefore, the Appellate Court disbelieved the case made out by the appellant of prior partition. Once the said case is disbelieved, it cannot be accepted that the property is self-acquired property of the appellant-first defendant as his specific case was that he has acquired the said property out of the income received from the property allotted to his share in the alleged partition. 3. The injunction granted by the Appellate Court is a limited injunction which prevents ouster of the original plaintiff. 4. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE