1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.672 OF 2009 Pundlik s/o Tryambak Patil, age: 42 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Katnore, Tq. Chopada, District Jalgaon. Appellant Versus 1 Ajabrao s/o Namdeo Patil, since deceased, through L.Rs: 1-A Sahebrao s/o Ajabrao Patil, age: 35 years, Occ: Agril.,; 1-B Bhaskar s/o Ajabrao Patil, age: 33 years, Occ: Agril.; 1-C Bhagvat s/o Ajabrao Patil, age: 30 years, Occ: Agril., 1-D Sumanbai s/o Ajabrao Patil, age: 55 years, Occ: Agril., All R/o Salwe, Tq.Dharangaon, District Jalgaon. 2 Jayantabai w/o Daga Patil, age: 38 years, Occ: Agri. & Labour, R/o Dhadseri, Tal. Erandol, District Jalgaon. 3 Kewalbai w/o Pandit Patil, age: 34 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Nandre, Tal. Pachora, District Jalgaon. Respondents 2 Mr.Paresh B. Patil, advocate for the applicant. Mr.Girish Rane, advocate for Respondents No.1A to 1D. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 15 th October, 2009. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by original defendants raising exception to the concurrent judgments delivered by both the Courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit bearing R.C.S. No.141/1980 claiming partition and separate possession of ancestral properties. Suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the property in dispute is the property purchased by his father and same exclusively belongs to defendant no.1. 3 The trial Court, however, considering the evidence led by parties, recorded a finding that the property in question is ancestral property and plaintiff has established his entitlement in respect of disputed property. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was subjected to challenge in Regular Civil Appeal No.29/1993. Appeal came to be heard and disposed of by Additional District Judge, Amalner, who was pleased to dismiss same by judgment and decree dated 10.07.2001. 3 4 I have perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding, based on appreciation of evidence, that the property in dispute is ancestral property. Plaintiff and defendants no.2 and 3 represent branch of one Shankar, whereas defendant no.1 represents branch of Omkar. Omkar and Shankar are successors of one Shivram. Obviously, therefore, branch of plaintiffs and defendants no.2 and 3 will have entitlement in respect of ½ share in the property. The Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have reached the conclusion that plaintiff has established entitlement in respect of his share in the ancestral property. The appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. 5 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. Pending Civil Application does not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa67209