IN THE HIGH COUT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 148 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICTION NO, 1455 OF 2008 Baban Pandurang Chor .... Appellant Vs. Sou Jagubai Ramchandra Jadhav & ors .... Respondents Mr. Ashok Misal Adv. For the appellant Mr. V.s. Talkute Adv. For the respondent no.1. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 17th June, 2010. P.C. : 1. This appeal is preferred by the original defendant no.1 challenging the judgment and decree dated 7th December 2007 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge­II, Satara in Regular Civil Suit no.190/01 as also the judgment and decree dated 2nd May 2001 passed by Joint CJJD, Phaltan in Regular Civil Suit no.7/97. By these judgments. the courts below decreed the suits instituted by the respondent no.1 ­original plaintiff. The courts below decreed the suit instituted by respondent no. 1 and held that she is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit land and further she is entitled to get partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit land and the appellant/defendant no.1 has 3/4th share in the suit land. 2. Heard Mr. Ashok Misal, learned counsel for the appellant­original defendant no.1 and Mr. Talkute, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1­original plaintiff. 3. Mr. Misal submitted that the partition was effected in 1962 between the father of appellant and respondent no.1 on one hand and the uncle Shankar, on the other. After the death of their father, the properties were recorded in the name of the appellant. The marriage of respondent no.1 was performed in the year 1962 and the present suit for partition and separate possession is instituted in the year 1997. He therefore submitted that in view of Article 110 of the Limitation Act 1963, the suit is barred by limitation. He further submitted that at the time of performing the marriage of respondent no.1, certain properties which were to be alloted to respondent no.1 were sold and consequently now she is not entitled to claim partition and separate possession. 4. Mr. Talkute, learned counsel for respondent no.1 supported the impugned judgment. In so far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the right of respondent no.1 is extinguished as per section 27 read with Article 110 of the Limitation Act is concerned, in para 13 of the judgment of the District Judge, it was observed that the property held by the appellant was his ancestral property which he has received because of his father’s death and by way of partition between his uncle and father. The respondent no.1 admittedly is the daughter of deceased Pandurang, and she definitely has interest in the property. Merely because some land was sold for performing the marriage of respondent no.1, it cannot be said that the right of the respondent no.1 is extinguished. In para 14 of the judgment of the District court it has been further observed that the appellant did not prove that the respondent no.1 is excluded as regards her right in the suit property. On the other hand the appellant clearly admitted in the written statement that the respondent no.1 has 1/4th share in the suit properties. In view of the findings of fact recorded by the courts below on appreciation of evidence, I do not find that this appeal raise any substantial question of law. Appeal is therefore dismissed. In C.A. No. 1455/08. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, no orders in Civil Application are necessary and the same is therefore rejected. [R.G. KETKAR, J.]