1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No.319 of 2009 (Ramchandra Gadge + 1 ..Vs.. Kamrunbi wd/o Karimkhan & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.U. Nemade, counsel for appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 24 , 2009 . Heard learned counsel for the appellants. By this second appeal the appellants challenge the judgment passed by the trial court on 31st July 2003 and the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court on 4th of March 2009 thereby granting the decree in favour of the original plaintiffs. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of the share in the suit property. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that they are the joint owners of the suit property 2 which comprises of 1.84 H.R. of land. According to the plaintiffs without their knowledge and permission, the defendant no.1 and 2 had sold the suit property to the defendant no.3 and 4 by registered sale deed on 1/7/1988. Hence, the suit for declaration and partition was filed. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 did not file any written statement. The defendant nos. 3 and 4, the purchasers of the property, filed the written statement and contested the suit. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiffs were the legal heirs of deceased Karimkhan and they were entitled to half share in the suit field after the death of Karimkhan. The defendant no.3 and 4 i.e. the present appellants filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The first Appellate Court modified the judgment and decree passed by the trail Court and declared that 3 the plaintiffs were entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit property comprising of 1.84 H.R. of land. The judgments passed by the trial Court and Appellate Court are challenged in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Courts were not justified in holding that the suit property admeasured 1.84 H.R. and the documentary evidence on record clearly shows that the suit fields did not admeasure 1.84 H.R. According to the learned counsel for the appellants this observation made by the Courts needs to be corrected. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the pleadings and the judgments passed by both the Courts, it appears that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal as the findings recorded by the Courts are pure findings of facts 4 based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. Even otherwise, a perusal of the written statement filed by the present appellants clearly reveals that the appellants have not raised the plea before the trial Court that the suit property did not admeasure 1.84 H.R. and the suit property admeasured 1.44 H.R. only. In the absence of such a plea, rightly, both the Courts have not considered this aspect of the matter. A ground in this regard is being raised by the appellants before this Court for the first time. The judgments passed by the Courts do not call for any interference. Since no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE nvt.