1 S.A. 337/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 337/2011 1 Shri Rajendra Vishwambhar Todkar, Age : 40 years, Occu. Rickshaw Driver, 2 Shri Balasaheb Vishwambhar Todkar, Age : 45 years, Occu. Service, Both R/o Plot No. 10, Nehru Nagar, Mohadi Road, Jalgaon, Tal and Dist. Jalgaon. ...Appellants. (Orig. Deft.) Versus Shri Sudhakar Vishwambhar Todkar, Age : 51 years, Occu. Business, R/o plot No. 10, Nehru Nagar, Mohadi Road, Jalgaon Tq. And Dist. Jalgaon. ...Respondent. (Orig. Pltff.) Mr. A.R. Kale h/f Mr.S.V. Natu, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent sole. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 25th July, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the respondent / plaintiff has proved his case of ownership to the suit property. The Courts below believed case of the respondent that he has purchased the suit property utilising his own funds. The case of the respondent / plaintiff was that since prior to 1983 he was independently doing his business and out of that business, collected funds for acquiring the suit property and so the suit property is his self acquired property and has nothing to do with the joint family. The parties here are brothers. The respondent / plaintiff is the eldest brother. He said that in the year 2002 the appellants / his younger brothers entered into his house on first floor which was lying 2 S.A. 337/2011 vacant and when he asked them to leave, they refused to do so. He therefore, sought possession of the area of the suit house which is in possession of the appellants. In view of the above discussion, the appellants could not prove that the suit property was joint family property. There is practically no evidence to support their case. On the other hand, the respondent / plaintiff adduced convincing evidence to explain as to how the eldest son he could gather his own funds while he was still very young and could acquire the property. The appeal should therefore, fail. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants tried to contend that the findings of the Courts below are perverse but having gone through the evidence, I am inclined to disagree with him. As said above, the respondent / plaintiff adduced cogent evidence. I do not find the findings recorded by the Courts below as perverse or illegal. No substantial question arises in this appeal. 4. As the appeal is going to be dismissed, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants sought indulgence in the form that the appellants be permitted to vacate the suit premises till 17th October, 2011. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are permitted to vacate the suit premises on their giving special undertaking that they would vacate the premises on or before 17th October, 2011. The appellants shall file affidavit within one week. In case, undertaking is not filed, effect of the 3 S.A. 337/2011 above mentioned concession shall seize to have tried. In view of the dismissal of second appeal, Civil Application No. 8625/2011 stands disposed of. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/2011/July25/sa337.11