FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. SECOND APPEAL NO.: 1743 OF 2004 1. Heard Shri S. S. Chaudhari for the Appellant. 2. This is an appeal filed by the original defendant No.1, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basmathnagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1986 decided on 26th February, 1999 which judgment and decree is further confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No.59 of 1999 by the Additional District Judge, Parbhani by judgment dated 8th July, 2004. 3. The original plaintiff, who is Respondent No.1, had filed suit for declaration that he is joint owner of Municipal House No.150/D situated at village Basmathnagar along with Appellant and other Respondents and for injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit house. 4. The main question is whether plaintiff/ respondent No.1 has share in the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff/ Respondent No.1 that one Narayan Yenkoji Jintoorkar was the original owner of whom plaintiff and defendants are the descendants and the Municipal House belonged to said Narayan FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. and as such it is a joint family property of Appellant and Respondents. Though the property was entered in the name of defendant No.1 (Appellant) in the Municipal Record, still it is of the joint family. In this circumstance declaration of title and perpetual injunction are sought. 5. The original defendant No.1to 3 filed their written statement Exhibit-17. They admitted that defendant Nos.1 to 4 are inter-se related. It is admitted that father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 was brother of father of defendant Nos.3 and 4. However, it is denied that the plaintiff was related to them. This aspect is dealt with in detail by the District Court in para Nos. 8 to 11. It is the case of the plaintiff that father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and father of defendant Nos.3 and 4 were his cousins. His father Pundlikrao and grand father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and grand father of defendant Nos.3 and 4 were brothers. In his deposition at Exhibit-50, plaintiff Digambar explained that Narayan Venkoji Jintoorkar was common ancestor who had three sons Mahadu, Baburao and Pundlikrao. Plaintiff and defendant No.5 are sons of Pundlik. Mahdu had a son Baburao FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. of whom defendant Nos.3 and 4 are sons. Pandurang was brother of Baburao and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are his sons. It is stated that after death of Narayan his eldest son's name was entered in the municipal record. Thus Mahadu's name was entered and after death of Mahadu name of defendant No.1 was entered in the muncipal record. The trial Court and the first appellate court both found the evidence of plaintiff reliable. In support of his say, he also produced extract maintained by Meer Majlis Local Fund, Tahsildar Basmathmagar which showed that the suit house was in the name of Narayan Yenkoba Jintoorkar in the year 1350 Fasli. On the other hand, defendants examined Shankar Jintoorkar at Exhibit-85 as their sole witness and in the cross examination he, though admitted that Baburao was his grand father, he could state the name of his great grant father. He showed ignorance whether grand father of defendant Nos.3 and 4 was brother of father of plaintiff. Thus, there is only plea of ignorance on the part of Appellant Shankar regarding relationship and great grand father. This is a question of appreciation of evidence. After going FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. through the judgments I do not found any perversity. No substantial question of law in this second appeal. Second Appeal stands dismissed. 6. In view of final disposal of the Second Appeal, civil application No.12716 of 2004 stands disposed of. [P. R. BORKAR, J.] Dated:19.06.2009 ans/1743