1 N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.294/2008 Surajlal Sharma ..vs.. Mohanlal & ors ================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE:8.8.2008. Heard Mr. S. S. Deshpande, advocate for the appellant/ original plaintiff. 2. The appellant had filed Regular Civil Suit No.113/2000 before the 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malkapur, District : Buldhana for partition and separate possession of the landed properties, particularly land Gat No.223, original survey no.107/1 and land gat no.222-A which is described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. 3. Learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff was unable to prove that it was ancestral property, as such the suit was dismissed. 4. Learned appellate Judge dismissed the appeal Regular Civil Appeal NO.52/2002 of this appellant. 5. The appellant seeks to challenge this judgment and decree in this appeal. 6. On perusal of the judgments of the courts below it does appear that Sundarabai – mother of defendant was purchaser of the suit property, later on gift deed came to be executed by her in favour of defendant no.1 on 12.11.1948. Said gift deed is a registered document which has been held to be properly proved by 2 the courts below. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Sundarabai could not purchase the suit property inasmuch as she had no separate income. In fact her husband had purchased the suit property in her name and therefore, it had a character of joint family property which passed on to the defendant no.1. 8. I have gone through the reasons recorded by the trial Judge and the appellate Judge for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit property was Joint Hindu Family Property, liable for partition. Reasons are supported by documents produced on record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out that the inferences drawn by the learned trial Judge and appellate Judge are incorrect. In fact the plaintiff has failed to prove that the property which is purchased in the name of Sundarabai could not be her self acquired property. 10. Consequently, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. As such the appeal cannot be entertained, same is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE smp