1 S.A. No.601.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No.601 OF 2010 Rajabhau S/o Madanrao Raut & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Smt. Shashikala W/o Baliram Kakade & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the appellants ... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13th December, 2010. PER COURT : This is defendants Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. The defendant has assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri S.S. Thombre, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there are other 2 S.A. No.601.2010 properties which have not been included in the suit and without inclusion of the other properties, the suit for partition and separate possession is not maintainable in the eyes of law. According to the learned Counsel, there was no evidence to show that the lands which were given to Laximibai by her mother sold the said lands and the sale proceeds are utilised to purchase suit land. It cannot be said that suit lands were ‘Stree-Dhan’. The learned Counsel further contended that the earlier partition has been pleaded and the same is also substantiated by the defendants evidence but the same has not been properly considered by the Courts below. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the respective parties I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts below. Laximibai was given some property by her mother is established by the cogent evidence. The suit property was a “Stree-Dhan” of Laxmibai. After the death of Laximibai her four sons and daughter would be entitle to the property. Even Madhavrao has supported the case of the plaintiff who is 3 S.A. No.601.2010 one of brother. The Courts have evaluated the oral evidence. There is no evidence except pleadings about the oral partition. 4. Both the Courts on appreciation and evaluation of evidence, have arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has share in the suit property. It was exclusive property of Laxmibai and there was no oral partition as claimed by the defendant. The said finding are based on evidence. There is no perversity in appreciation of evidence, interalia no substantial question of law arises. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application is also disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM*