1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. Admit.

3. With consent of both the learned counsels, appeal is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.

4. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and decree dated 8.4.2013 passed by Ad Hoc District Judge, Pandharpur, in Civil Appeal No. 129 of 2007, which was directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2007, passed by the III Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Pandhapur in R.C.S. No. 276 of 1998.

5. The said suit was filed by the present appellants for partition and separate possession of their share in the joint family properties. It is their case that the appellant No.2 is the wife of respondent No.1. Appellant No.1 is their daughter. Respondent No.8, since deceased, was the father of respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 is the second wife of respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the children born to respondent Nos. 1 and 4, out of the wedlock.

6. It is the case of the appellants that as the appellant No.2 was not treated properly by respondent No.1, she was constrained to reside separately from him. Earlier her name was entered into the joint family property bearing gat No. 240. However, respondent No.1 her husband without taking her consent, has entered the said land in the name of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 whereas, the land bearing Gat No.119 is entered in the name of respondent No.5. Not only that, on 7.8.1996 respondent No.8 her father-in-law had filed application for entering the name of other respondents in the 7x12 extracts of the suit properties. Accordingly Mutation Entry bearing No. 2731 was certified, as a result of which, the names of respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were entered in the 7x12 extracts of other joint family properties. Moreover, in order to deprive the appellants of their shares, in the joint family properties, respondent No.1 has not kept any property in his name. In view thereof, appellants were constrained to file this suit for partition and separate possession of their share in the joint family properties.

7. This suit came to be resisted by respondent No.1, mainly on the ground that as there is no partition between him and his father respondent No.8, appellants have no right to sue for partition of the joint family properties. It was contended that appellant No.2 was only entitled to ask for maintenance during the life time of her husband and she has no right to get share in the property. It is denied that the names of other respondents were entered into record of rights of the suit lands to avoid the shares of appellants. It is submitted that it was done only by way of family arrangement. In sum and substance, therefore, the right of the appellants to claim relief of partition was challenged, as respondent No.1 was still residing in the joint family with respondent No.8 his father.

8. On the respective pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary issues. In support of their case, appellant No.2 examined herself. However, respondents had not led any oral or documentary evidence on record.

9. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court arrived at a finding that all the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties and the appellants are entitled to get partition of their separate share in the suit property. One of the contentions raised by respondents in the course of cross examination of the appellant No.2, that the lands bearing Block No.401 and 398 situated at Gursale were not the ancestral joint family property as it was purchased by respondent No.8 along with four other co-owners and therefore, it was his self acquired property, was also rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court further held that the joint family properties are already partitioned by respondent No.8. Accordingly the names of other respondents are entered into revenue record. Therefore, the contention that there was no partition between respondent No.1 and respondent