1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2008 (Supada Bhikaji Baudha & Ors. vs. Budha Bhikaji Baudha & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 03, 2009. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants. The defendant is challenging concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower Courts. It is stated by Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants that the appellants / defendants and respondents/ plaintiffs have been staying separately since 1950 and properties have been purchased by Exhs. 43 and 44 on 12.11.1951 and 1.2.1957 respectively. Shri Deshpande contends that the plaintiff did not contribute anything and the fields belonged to present appellants only. He further states that in view of this position, the appellant partitioned these properties between his sons in the year 1957 and this conduct of the appellant shows his mentality i.e. adverse possession. According to him, therefore, as the suit has been filed in the year 2002, the suit also was time barred. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, contends that staying of parties 2 separately is not of any importance in present matter. The properties Exhs. 42 and 43 are obtained in the joint name by both brothers. He further states that when the effort to mutate fields in the names of sons by the appellants was noticed, immediately suit has been filed. He points out that the Courts below have concurrently held in favour of present respondents. The perusal of Section 45 of Transfer of Property shows that when immovable property is purchased for consideration, which is obtained out of funds belonging to joint purchasers in common, in absence of contract to the contrary, they are entitled to interest in such property in the same proportion in which they held the said joint fund. It is to be noticed that the evidence in this respect has not been brought on record and the appellants have denied any contribution by present respondents. Thus, the recourse to Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act as a last resort before this Court cannot be encouraged. I, therefore, do not find any substantial question of law in this Second Appeal. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.