1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL No.8 OF 2005 (Prabhakar s/o Namdeorao Fuse and another ..vs.. Sudhakar s/o Namdeorao Fuse and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.S. Deshpande, Adv. for the appellants, None for the respondents. CORAM:- A.B.CHAUDHARI, J DATED :- 14-03-2011 Learned Counsel for the appellants in support of second appeal argued before me that the appellate Court erred in including the house property of the appellant in the hotchpotch. Consequently it wrongly passed a partition decree modifying the judgment of the trial Court ignoring the fact that the said separate property was purchased by the appellant from the income, which he received from scholarship while taking education in 10th Standard. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the appellate Court. The appellant claimed that he was receiving Rs.20/- per month towards scholarship when he was studying in 10th standard. He further claimed that he saved some amount from the said scholarship amount and purchased the suit property for himself from 2 the said amount. The appellate Court has found that the appellant never took such a plea in the written statement and attempted to say so in his evidence for the first time. 3. That apart, I find from the record that the appellant did not place any satisfactory oral or documentary evidence on record that he was really getting scholarship at the rate of Rs.20/- per month or that he saved required amount from the amount of scholarship to purchase the said property. In my opinion, it is improbable that the appellant would have saved some amount from the sum of Rs.20/- and purchased a house. Such a plea was raised by him for the first time in evidence with a view to avoid the claim of his other brothers on the said property. The appellate Court was right in discarding the said plea and thus did not find any merit therein. The finding of fact recorded by the appellate Curt is legal, correct and proper and there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. In the result, Second Appeal No.8 of 2005 is dismissed summarily. JUDGE pma