1 S.A. 473/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 473/2011 1 Sundarabai w/o Taterao Jadhav, (Abated) 2 Bhagubai w/o Ramesh Kajale, Age : 45 years, Occu. Household, R/o At Ambegaon Tq. Manwath, Dist. Parbhani. ...Appellants. (Orig. Plaintiffs) Versus Datta s/o Sahebrao Jadhav, Age : 50, Occu. Agri. R/o At Ambegaon, Post. Devalgaon, Tq. Manwath, Dist. Parbhani. ...Respondent. (Orig. Defendant) Mr. S.D. Tare, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 5th October, 2011. ORAL ORDER: 1. This second appeal challenges the finding recorded by the learned judge of the first appellate court. The appellants / plaintiffs could not prove ownership to the suit land. The facts leading to the litigation can be narrated as under. 2. Initially, the suit was filed by two plaintiffs i.e. Sundarabai and Bhagubai. Sundarabai was mother of Bhagubai. Respondent Datta is nephew of Sundarabai. Sundarabai and Datta’s father Sahebrao cultivated land Gat No.25 admeasuring 2H 90R jointly as ancestral property. Sundarabai was widow of Sahebrao’s brother. In 1990 Sundarabai and Sahebrao effected partition of the above 2 S.A. 473/2011 mentioned land. However, the record shows that the shares allotted in partition were not equal. The record shows that only 1 H area was allotted to the share of Sundarabai whereas share of Sahebrao admeasures 1H 90R. Sundarabai did not raise any objection to the revenue record showing her share smaller in size than the share of her brother in law. It so happened that Sundarabai thereafter transferred her land which was shown in revenue record having area of 1H, to her daughter Bhagubai who is the appellant now. Bhagubai also sold the land which was received from her mother Sundarabai, to one Dnyanoba in 2000, and in 2004 she raised the dispute that her mother ought to have got share of 1H 45 R etc.. She demanded possession of 45 R land from the respondent. The respondent took up a stand that when the partition took place, Sundarabai was given 1 H land only because it was more fertile than the land allotted to the share of his father Sahebrao. The learned judge of the first appellate court accepted this defence and held to be truthful. In view of this, there appears no substantial question of law arising in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal should fail. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/Oct.2011/5th/sa473.11