1. Heard Mr. Sonawane, learned counsel for the Appellants-Applicants, and Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred by Original Defendant Nos.1 and 2, challenging concurrent finding of the facts and law, as recorded by both the Courts below by the 'Judgment and Decree' dated 19th November 2013 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.177 of 2010 by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yeola, Dist. Nashik, which is confirmed by the Court of District Judge-1, Niphad in a 'Judgment and Decree' dated 18th April 2018 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.152 of 2013.

3. The factual matrix of the case can be stated to the effect that, Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers of deceased Macchhindra. Respondent No.1 is the wife and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of late Macchhindra. They had filed this Suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the suit lands. According to them, the suit land described in paragraph No.1 (A) of the plaint was purchased by Macchhindra from his own earnings, which was mutated by deceased Macchhindra in the name of his mother Radhabai by way of family arrangement in the year 2000; whereas, the suit land described in paragraph No.1(B) of the plaint was purchased by deceased Macchhindra in the name of Appellant No.2, out of the income from the joint family. It is their further contention that, after the death of Macchhindra on 20th September 2004, Respondents were driven out of the house and as a result, now they are constrained to file this Suit for partition and their share in both the lands, which, according to them, were purchased by Macchhindra from his own earnings and from the income of the joint family respectively.

4. This Suit came to be resisted by both the Appellants contending inter alia that, the Respondents have no concern with the suit lands. It was submitted that, the property mentioned in paragraph No.1(A) of the plaint was given to Radhabai by Macchhindra himself in the family arrangement and then Radhabai had executed a 'Will', bequeathing the said property in favour of Appellant No.2. Therefore, Appellant No.2 has become the sole and exclusive owner thereof. It was submitted that, in the said partition, Macchhindra got the 'Truck' and, therefore, he was not given any share in the landed property. Macchhindra was knowing the said fact; therefore, he had given consent to the execution of the 'Will' by Radhabai in favour of Appellant No.2. As regards the property described in paragraph No.1(B) of the plaint, it was submitted that, it is the separate and self-acquired property of Appellant No.2 and, therefore, Respondents cannot have any share therein. A plea was also raised that the sisters of the Appellants, namely, Latabai and Ashabai are the necessary parties to the Suit, but they were not impleaded and hence the Suit is barred by the provisions of non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. In support of her case, Respondent No.1 examined herself; whereas, Appellant Nos.1 and 2 also led their own evidence. The 'Will' of Radhabai was produced and proved on record vide 'Exhibit-61'.

6. On appreciation of this oral and documentary evidence produced on record by both the parties, the Trial Court was pleased to hold that, both the suit properties were purchased out of the income from the joint family and, therefore, Respondents are entitled to get 1/3rd share therein. It was negated that, by way of family arrangement, Macchhindra has given the suit property described in paragraph No.1(A) of the plaint to his mother Radhabai and Radhabai was competent to bequeath the said property in favour of Appellant No.2. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the Suit, granting 1/3rd share in both the properties to the Respondents and further ordering the enquiry for mesne profits.

7. When the Appellants challenged the 'Judgment' of the Trial Court before the first Appellate Court, the first Appellant Court also confirmed all the findings of