: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.219 OF 2009 Shankar Kisan Shivde ... Appellant v/s. Dattatraya Kisan Shivde & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.G. Toraskar for Appellant Mr.S.H. Joshi for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 7TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal has been filed against the order of the lower appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.58 of 2003. The lower appellate Court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with costs. The suit was filed for partition and for separate possession and for permanent injunction by Respondent No.1 herein. The trial Court did not accept the contention of the plaintiff that the suit land being Survey No.460, Hissa NO.1 at Talasari was a joint family property. Instead it concluded that the property was a self acquired property of Defendant No. i.e. the appellant herein. The suit was therefore dismissed. The appeal was filed by the plaintiff contending that the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective. The appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that it was proved that the suit property was joint family property. This finding was arrived at on the basis of the suit land. The appellate Court has found and in my view, rightly that the recitals indicate that it was joint family property and it was only because of the death of the father of the plaintiff and the defendants that the agreement was executed with Defendant No.1 alone. The appellate Court has also considered the : 2 : fact that the Defendant No.1 had failed to prove that there was any evidence on record to indicate that the suit property belonged exclusively to him. 2. The learned advocate for the appellant Defendant No.1 submits that the appellate Court has committed a grave error by not considering certain relevant evidence on record which demonstrates that the property was a self acquired property of the appellant. He points out that the assessment records and the earlier suit filed by the landlady indicated that the appellant was in possession of the suit land. According to the learned advocate, this fact has not been considered which has led to injustice for the appellant. He submits that the second appeal would be maintainable to correct this finding of fact recorded by the appellate Court. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1749; Abdul Raheem v/s. Karnataka Electricity Board & Ors., (2007) 14 SCC 138 and; Laxmi Ram & Ors. v. Bietshwar Singh & Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 697, in my opinion, there can be no quarrel with the proposition of law as enunciated in the aforesaid decisions. However, in the facts of the present case, the appellate Court has considered the fact that the evidence, namely, the agreement which was executed by Defendant No.1 with the landlady indicated amply that it was a joint family property and not exclusively the property of the appellant. 3. In my opinion, no substantial question of law has been raised in the present appeal and therefore the appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil application NO.816 of 2009 does not survive and the same is dismissed accordingly.