JUDGMENT :- The Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.97/l996 are appellants in this Second Appeal. The Respondent-Plaintiff had filed said suit claiming partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit property. The Defendants appeared and filed written statement at Exh.30. The trial court framed issues at Exh.31. Those are seven in number. The trial court after considering the evidence led on behalf of the parties decreed the suit with costs holding that the Plaintiff is entitled to get his one half share in the suit property by partition. The decree was directed to be sent to the District Collector under section 54 of Civil Procedure Code for effecting partition. Mesne profits were also directed under Order 20, Rule 12(1)(c) of Civil Procedure Code. The judgment and decree is passed on July 26th. 2000. This judgment and decree was subject matter of challenge before the District Judge in appeal. It was Regular Civil Appeal No.32/2000 under Section 96 r/w Section 41 of Civil Procedure Code. The Regular Civil Appeal No.32/2000 was heard and disposed of by the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Nandurbar, Dist.-Dhule by its judgment and order passed on January 15th, 2005. The appeal filed by the Defendants came to be dismissed with costs. The said judgment and decree is under challenge in this second appeal filed by the Defendants.

2. The learned counsel Shri. C.R. Deshpande, for the Appellants, invited my attention to the grounds stated in memo of second appeal. According to him ground No.XII(A), which is reproduced herein below, is the ground involving substantial question of law;

XII(A) Whether the findings and conclusion arrived at by both the courts below is perverse for the reason of non-consideration of the evidence of the deed placed on record at Exh.88.

3. Shri. Deshpande learned counsel while elaborating this ground i.e. XII(A) submitted that the interpretation of the document Exh. 88, is a substantial question of law. Copy of the document is annexed with the Civil Application as 'R-l'. The learned counsel Shri. Deshpande has made available the copy of paper book prepared by the Additional District Judge, Dhule. The Plaintiff in the suit has given genealogy which is not in dispute. A statement is made in paragraph 3 that land Gat No.46 corresponding old Survey No.4 7, admeasuring 7 Hector, 18 Aar situated at village Kalamba, Tal.-Nandurbar is ancestral joint family property of the parties. There was no partition amongst the members of the joint family consisting of Plaintiff and Defendants regarding the suit property. Mutation Entry 37 was obtained by the Defendant no.1 regarding the suit property and the record of rights of the suit property. Objection was raised regarding this mutation entry No.37 to the Tahsildar Nandurbar. The Tahsildar Nandurbar informed the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff should approach Civil court seeking redressal and for adjudication of his rights. Therefore, the suit for partition and separate possession.

4. I have also perused the pleadings in the written statement at Exh. 13. It appears that the said written statement was filed on behalf of the Defendant No.3. In paragraph 3 it is pleaded that the Defendants are residing separate and the Plaintiff since 20 to 21 years is residing at village Nawasapada, Tq.-Sakri, Dist.-Dhule. It is also pleaded that the suit property is self acquired property of the Defendants and Plaintiff or his father had no concern with the suit property. The father of the Plaintiff, according to the Defendants, died when the plaintiff himself was 6 months old. Mother of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff was 7 months minor, left the plaintiff with the Defendants and married another person and is residing with the said person. There is no joint family of the Plaintiff and Defendants neither any property in the joint family. The Defendant No.1 being real uncle of the plaintiff has looked after the plaintiff and has raised the plaintiff. The Plaintiff has no concer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document