( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 614 OF 2006 Sow. Mina w/o. Gulabrao Deshmukh & ors. .. Appellants Versus Bhimrao s/o. Bapurao Deshmukh & ors. .. Respondents Shri S.V. Warad, Advocate for the appellants. Shri P.D. Suryawanshi h/f. Shri D.N. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 15.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.V.Warad for the appellant and Adv. Shri P.D. Suryawanshi h/f. Adv. Shri D.N. Suryawanshi for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This is an appeal filed by two daughters who are original plaintiffs for getting shares in father’s property who is very much alive and is respondent No.1 before the Court. Now it is admitted position that both the appellants were married prior to the Maharashtra Amendment of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. So, in the circumstances it cannot be said ( 2 ) that they have become coparceners. Their suit is filed on 29.04.2000, much prior to the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. In the facts and circumstances, during life time of respondent No.1 the appellants are not entitled to their share. The concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below are as per provisions of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. 2. Adv. Shri Warad for the appellants stated that atleast as heirs of mother, who is dead, the appellants are entitled to the share in the property of the respondents. No such case is made out in the plaint and no new case can be considered in the Second Appeal. If law permits, the appellants may resort to appropriate remedy. 3. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa614.06